The author never assumes that people’s increased interest in parthenogenesis means that they really understand it. She just claims that more cases of parthenogenesis have been found since interest in it has increased.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author doesn’t draw a causal conclusion at all. She concludes that the number of species that use parthenogenesis is increasing, but she doesn’t say that increased interest caused this increase.

The author assumes that humans’ ignorance of certain species’ ability to reproduce through parthenogenesis is evidence that they could not reproduce this way before. But it’s more likely that these species always reproduced this way, and humans are just now aware of it.

This is describing a flawed analogy. The author doesn’t make this mistake. She doesn’t present two situations as being similar in the first place. Instead, she assumes that parthenogenesis is on the rise just because more cases have been discovered.

The author never assumes that new research is better than old research. She points out that humans are aware of more cases of parthenogenesis than they were in the past. But her flaw is in the assumption that this increased knowledge means that parthenogenesis is on the rise.