The first mistake is that you're looking for tests in particular, which are terrible at measuring human cognitive abilities. We're definitely not doing well in this department, despite what wishful thinkwers would have you believe. The most empirical test we have for human cognitive capabilities is an IQ test, which those behind the test can't even tell you what they're measuring beyond "IQ" which they defined to be "general intelligence" but they'll even tell you that they have no idea what that even means. It correlates with some things, but it's not all that useful. The best test you'd hope for is some sort of memory test, which would have trouble evaluating both ability to remember something and the quality of that memory. As space repetition programs will show you, it's not so cut and dry as simply remembered or not. Therefore, based on our current knowledge, such tests have no credibility.

As for evidence, this is easily demonstrable first hand, and most easily with the martial arts example. If i were to demonstrate a "harimau takedown" (some takedown i don't know the real name of that comes from Silat) as it's called in my gym in a video, and also wrote the procedure, and we got 4 students (whome we'll call A, B, C, and D respectively), where students A and B have no experience in martial arts, and students C and D have studied wrestling, and if A and C i provide a video, and B and D I only provide the text explanation, A, C, and D will be likely to get some semblance of the technique down enough that they will be able to perform the technique in the first place against a training partner, and from there the same pattern would apply regardless of introductory method (that is to say, they'd have to practice it and perfect it and memorize the perfections, switch to a resistive opponent and repeat those steps, etc). B, however, is unlikely to pick up the necessary data to perform the technique, because describing the technique adequately through text alone to the degree that an untrained person would be able to even follow it is unlikely. The converse can be true of a complex magic trick, because magic tricks are all about hiding things by distracting the eyes from where the trick is performed, so for your average magic trick B, C, and D are more likely to get to the stage of being able to demonstrate it themselves. The key here is the initial demonstration/performance stage, because after that comes the perfection. However you cannot improve a technique of any kind if you cannot get to the point of knowing what succeed and fail look like, as well as what went wrong when the attempt fails. The fundamental question is what technique is best for getting one's foot in the door. For martial arts, guiding one's hand is easily the most effective method for the inexperienced, and for flying an airplane, somthing similar would be appropriate. For programming, typing for someone isn't going to really accomplish much of anything, and instead the tried and true method for boilerplate memorization is making someone actually type something that is written (rather than copy and paste or downloading a file), while the problem solving parts are best presented through text that can be read. This is not dissimilar to how different types of graphs present different types of data in different ways and how one type of graph is more efficient for one type of data than another. Well, there's a few reasonable arguments, really.

1st: What if the poster you're replying to is no longer present to defend their claims from a bad counter-argument?

2nd: What if the poster you're replying to no longer holds the belief you're responding to?

3rd: Most threads have a line of logic or a flow to them, and getting back into an old thread can require reading several back pages just to respond to some one (depends on the topic and line of argumentation).

Of course, this has no bearing on the actual arguments being presented, but it does have bearing on the people participating on the threads. This is why i prefer my style of tackling necroposts, because necroposting happens because issues in a thread might persist rather than being solved when the thread "dies," and starting up a new topic for something "already covered" is even less polite. Therefore, the wiser thing is to try to get the arguments re-addressed to those actually around. It seems like a nice compromise, to me, since obviously a compromise is necessary, 'cause neglecting an issue simply because "it was already discussed before" is still inappropriate and neglectful.
Most necroposts i've seen were not bots. As you can see, this necroposter isn't exactly advertising anything, or if they did they failed hard at it by failing to post a link.

“ many programs that can be used without learning, such as TunesKit AceMovi and iMovi. Among them, TunesKit AceMovi has many functions, supporting screen recording and slideshow”, plus just joined, plus no games or activity = suspicious to me.

Edit, just noticed this thread: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/we_are_under_attack_again

Suspect, but he mentions 2 products, one of which is 3rd party, and the other of which was typoed and is an official apple product that is free for iphones. Given that context, while i do find it suspicious he hasn't responded since, it makes for a strange advertisement to paint your primary competitor in a positive light and point someone to that competitor which is offering a much, much better deal (check the price of AceMovi vs the price of free for iMovie).

You give it way too much thought. I am not even looking up those products mentioned, I just take the face value of evidence at the time and move on. May not be right every time but hey.

Well, like i said, the second of the two is a product provided officially from Apple and released for free, and the former you have a case on, but it seems strange to try to advertise that way. I tend to give someone the benefit of the doubt until i know better. Especially in a case like this where it's only so damn subtle and poorly done if it is a spam advert.