Sure, any reasonably intelligent person can grasp what a Hamiltonian Cycle is, once you explain it to them. But this article starts talking about 'em before it's defined 'em, which is just bad pedagogy.

Sure, you don't have to know what it is to understand the rest of the article, but it's still a pretty valid criticism.

(I did three years of undergrad maths and I had to go look up what a Hamiltonian cycle is.)