Work by contradiction.
We assume Eddie Howe has done as much or more than Mikel Arteta, and conclude Newcastle must be doing as well as Arsenal. Newcastle have five fewer league points than Arsenal and have lost three of their six opening matches, so factually Newcastle are not doing as well as Arsenal. Our original assumption is therefore contradicted, and we must conclude Eddie Howe has not done as much or more than Mikel Arteta.
The trouble for some is that "Eddie Howe has achieved less than Mikel Arteta in less time while spending less" doesn't offer that same nice, soothing rhetorical purchase. Instead one finds oneself out in the wilderness of common sense, a harsh environment in which a League Cup runners-up medal doesn't buy a lifetime of triple-hatted dinners.
This is a bit like last season, though, I've never been impressed and Newcastle cantered into the top four, so … who knows. It's a good subplot, but for me they're villains.
