> why you think this article tries to convey the idea that SF is special. She lives in this city, she interested in the flaking phenomena. She's said not a word about the city being special.
It says 'the rate of "flaking" in San Francisco is really high' - the only reasonable reading of that to me is 'really high... compared to other places'. You can only be 'high' compared to something else, and the only thing which qualifies this data point is 'in San Francisco'.
I don't think it's unreasonable that SF has an anomalously high flaking rate compared to cities in the rest of the US. I don't have data on it, but I don't think it's a statement that's so unlikely to be true that the author deserves to be shamed for making it.
Someone asked 'why you think this article tries to convey the idea that SF is special'. I pointed out where the article implies that the rate is high compared to other places. So you're not really arguing about the same thing.
It says 'the rate of "flaking" in San Francisco is really high' - the only reasonable reading of that to me is 'really high... compared to other places'. You can only be 'high' compared to something else, and the only thing which qualifies this data point is 'in San Francisco'.