Popular science publications that explain new developments in science face a dilemma.
Conclusion (therefore)
Popular science mags that explain new science stuff should give up trying to explain new developments to a wide audience.
Evidence
They have a choice: 1. use somewhat inaccurate metaphorical writing, and appeal to a wide audience
2. use accurate but more rigorous writing, and lose the wide audience.
The author, of course, votes for door #2. She must care more about accuracy than about reaching a wide audience.
Goal
We might see a Weighing Tradeoffs style answer: does the author think we should prioritize reaching a wide audience or prioritize conveying the science accurately?
She cares more about conveying the science accurately.
Or we might see a typical conditional answer: fails to convey the → should give up trying science accurately to do it