This challenges the assumption that good computer programs can replace sound mathematical reasoning. It implies that engineers with little mathematical knowledge would not be able to use these programs effectively.

This is fully compatible with the conclusion. Whether the emergence of these programs occurs in the past or future, the author advocates a change based on the expectation those programs will be in use while current students are practicing engineers.

This strengthens the argument because it suggests time spent learning mathematical skills could be more productive if spent learning about composites.

This strengthens the argument because it suggests that most engineers who work in industry will have the capability to run these programs. It eliminates the possibility that the programs will be inaccessible to most practicing engineers.

Proficiency in those computer programs may not make engineers proficient in the mathematical programs described. It’s not stated whether the programs engineers are already familiar with require a strong mathematical foundation.