Does this argument hold up?

“I have now managed remote teams at three companies, and the pattern is unmistakable. In every case, the engineers who worked from home shipped less code, attended fewer design discussions, and were the first to leave when things got difficult.”

The author uses personal experience from a limited number of companies as proof for a universal claim about remote work, which does not establish a general pattern.

“Consider the evidence. Yahoo ended its remote work programme in 2013. IBM recalled thousands of remote staff to offices in 2017. Best Buy abandoned its results-only work environment. Three of the most recognisable names in technology looked at the data available to them and reached the same conclusion.”

The author selects only companies that discontinued remote work while ignoring many firms that have successfully operated remotely, biasing the evidence.

“The studies claiming productivity gains deserve little weight. Most of them are produced by researchers who themselves work remotely, or funded by the very companies selling video conferencing software. It is hardly surprising that people whose comfort depends on an answer manage to find it.”

The argument attacks the researchers' motives and funding sources instead of addressing the substance of their studies, dismissing evidence based on perceived bias.

“The most vocal advocate of remote work in our own organisation is a junior developer who has never managed anyone, has been with the company for eight months, and by his own admission has not been in the office since March. It is difficult to take seriously a theory of team management advanced by someone with no experience of managing a team.”

The author rejects the advocate's position by focusing on their lack of managerial experience rather than engaging with any arguments they might present.