This criticism is a pet peeve of mine. People use "never" and "always" all the time and everyone knows (ok, almost everyone) that they don't literally mean "never" and "always". For example, in this case he means, "Don't make the mistake of hiring a job hopper because you somehow think this time it'll be different. You're almost certainly wrong, and there's no way to tell in advance besides, so don't bother taking the risk. There are other similar candidates without that risk."
'People use "never" and "always" all the time and everyone knows (ok, almost everyone) that they don't literally mean "never" and "always".'
I think it still makes a difference though. I mean consider the following two sentences:
"Job hoppers NEVER make good employees."
"Job hoppers ALMOST NEVER make good employees."
The former is much more strongly worded to the point of requiring overwhelming evidence that I feel you won't be able to find when dealing with human behavior.
In your criticism you've missed an important factor. The former sentence is better writing.
I also struggle with this when I write, but I try to catch myself and avoid going down that slippery slope. You can spend the time trying to make each of your statements precise so that no one can challenge it like you've challenged this one. Alternatively, you could choose to put something strongly, trusting your audience to see your point and find your readers are more engaged and eager to discuss your ideas.
That's highly debateable. And even if it's true, it's very much situational.
I think it depends a lot on the purposes behind your writing. Are you writing to persuade people? Then perhaps you should consider the more strongly worded phrase. Are you writing to inform people (as this author does)? Then you're likely better off prioritizing accuracy. Like Einstein said: "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor."
Mixing persuasive and informative writing is generally a bad idea (although informing people of what your opinion is is a bit of a grey area). At best, it convinces your reader that you're trying to persuade rather than inform and makes you lose credibility. At worst, it's unethical because it's stating opinion as fact.
