Definitely straw man, and since it's from a straw-hat man, it amounts to a straw man squared.

Speaking of fallacies... the above is an ad hominem, I am well aware. It's in jest, lighten up, I just could not resist the temptation ;)

But seriously: the article *clearly* talks about equal opportunities. I am not sure what you read in it that suggests it talks about anything else.

It explains that effort matters relatively little, seen that opportunities are provided overwhelmingly to the privileged, who therefore can get ahead even with little or no effort and with no abilities to speak of.

It is sufficient to see how the ex president of the US got to that position in spite of his very poor cognitive abilities, his being a pathological liar of very dubious character, and being an overall useless, inept human being. The living testimony that anyone can become a billionaire as long as they inherit a fortune from their daddy.

Carlotta Liebenstein in 1992 left 80 millions to her dog Gunther III. After only a few years, the fortune had grown to 372 million. I am sure Gunther was a very good boy, but I doubt the dog was a genius of finance, or practiced anything for 10000 hours that wasn't licking his testicles.

On the other hand, as many in these comments have pointed out, even a bright person who works very hard may often find it difficult to be recognised, if they start with no money, having to work to support themselves or their family, having no social capital to leverage, and with no inheritance from daddy dear. Barred the flukes of life and a bit of luck, it's often impossible for people to lift themselves by their bootstraps.

I can see this every day, when trying to understand why some student show poor results and I find out that they are working nights and weekends to support their families.