A similar thing was pointed out 14 years ago in this post. Anyway, I like the way you phrased it, very precise.
I’d say the general lesson is probably this: Arguments of the form of “X is highly conjunctive in ways 1, 2, 3, …, n, therefore it is very unlikely” and “X is highly disjunctive, in ways 1, 2, 3, …, n, therefore it is very likely” are not necessarily wrong, but easily misleading, because they trick us into underestimating or overestimating probabilities. The best solution is probably to avoid making these types of arguments and only present a few (strong) reasons for/against something.
A similar thing was pointed out 14 years ago in this post. Anyway, I like the way you phrased it, very precise.
I’d say the general lesson is probably this: Arguments of the form of “X is highly conjunctive in ways 1, 2, 3, …, n, therefore it is very unlikely” and “X is highly disjunctive, in ways 1, 2, 3, …, n, therefore it is very likely” are not necessarily wrong, but easily misleading, because they trick us into underestimating or overestimating probabilities. The best solution is probably to avoid making these types of arguments and only present a few (strong) reasons for/against something.