You say it's a dumb question to ask, yet you still deemed necessary to include in your own statement facts such as that these are "very early test launches" and that "so much went right".
If it's so dumb for anyone to even ask if three explosions is a problem, why did you do this? Why didn't you just write "Asking if three explosions is a problem is a dumb question to even ask."? Why was it necessary to introduce supporting evidence?
Could it be that you think it's a dumb question because you know these facts? And the article author's job, as a journalist, is to assume, accurately, that most people don't know these facts. Most people are not SpaceX super-fans who have been closely following the test programme. Many will just hear "SpaceX blew up a third rocket" and wonder if things are going wrong, and the author's job, as a professional journalist is to inform those people.
If it's so dumb for anyone to even ask if three explosions is a problem, why did you do this? Why didn't you just write "Asking if three explosions is a problem is a dumb question to even ask."? Why was it necessary to introduce supporting evidence?
Could it be that you think it's a dumb question because you know these facts? And the article author's job, as a journalist, is to assume, accurately, that most people don't know these facts. Most people are not SpaceX super-fans who have been closely following the test programme. Many will just hear "SpaceX blew up a third rocket" and wonder if things are going wrong, and the author's job, as a professional journalist is to inform those people.