Well I do know that most stars are unstable red dwarfs. Also that most are binary or multiple star systems. I also know that most exoplanets are not located in a habitable zone. That’s common knowledge. What I do not know, nor does anyone, is the number of other conditions which might render a planet uninhabitable. They could be great or small. But as I said, the sheer number of exoplanets is not evidence of anything, nor does the lack of evidence constitute evidence in itself.
Well I do know that most stars are unstable red dwarfs. Also that most are binary or multiple star systems. I also know that most exoplanets are not located in a habitable zone. That’s common knowledge.
It has been *estimated* that up to 85% of stars are binary or multiple, relationships apparently first suggested a couple hundred years ago by Herschel. But using your own professed standard, the sheer number of binary or multiple star systems isn't evidence of anything.
Most exoplanets found thus far have been in orbit around red dwarf stars -- because they are much easier to detect. So, again, the sheer number of exoplanets around red dwarf stars isn't evidence of anything.
[snip] In October 2016, deep-field images from the Hubble Space Telescope suggested that there are about 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe, or about 10 times more galaxies than previously suggested... about 100 million stars in the average galaxy. [/snip] (Space.com)