No, I'm saying that if you know the rock is 200 years old, as stated in the article, and you use a test that is known to be inaccurate on that age sample, of course you'll get bogus results.
You also validate that the specific aging system is not so reliable as many scientists would like you to believe.
That's just it. A rock 200 years old, under the K-Ar assumptions should not have had any measurable Ar in it. The test should have failed because the lab shouldn't have been able to detect Ar. But the lab detected considerable Ar. Therefore instead of the lab saying that the result was invalid because of insufficient Ar, the lab dated the rock at an old age.
If the lab can date new rocks at an old age. There is no way to know whether any of the rocks that were dated at old ages, are new or old.
And that's why scientists abandoned K-Ar dating.