1) It's an argument against the article because the chart is presented with little consideration to the methods used to generate the chart, which are arbitrary and are homomorphic to a specific (yet unspecified) definition of harm.
2) It's easy to interpret the chart to mean that, in the driving metaphor, driving at 200 mph is safe so let's just eliminate speed limits. Again a deficiency in the definition of harm (total harm, harm per capita, economic harm, social harm, initial harm, expected lifetime harm, average harm, what does harm even mean) leading to conclusions not supported by evidence.
A more specific chart and methodology would help people to do informed reasoning. If your presentation of evidence isn't actually helping people to make more informed conclusions, what is it doing?
2) It's easy to interpret the chart to mean that, in the driving metaphor, driving at 200 mph is safe so let's just eliminate speed limits. Again a deficiency in the definition of harm (total harm, harm per capita, economic harm, social harm, initial harm, expected lifetime harm, average harm, what does harm even mean) leading to conclusions not supported by evidence.
A more specific chart and methodology would help people to do informed reasoning. If your presentation of evidence isn't actually helping people to make more informed conclusions, what is it doing?