Not only is the math not unrealistic, but I'd argue EVs have a fairy obvious structural advantage that makes their convenience advantage clear without having to do math at all.
A large percentage of personal vehicles mostly take short distance trips between which they spend the vast majority of their life parked at one of a handful of consistent locations. Even with slow charging, EVs have ample opportunity to "refuel" with no additional time investment. As for monetary cost, the electricity to refuel an EV can be generated by a huge number of sources to leverage the cheapest (or greenest if that's what you want to optimize for) ones and be centralized to take advantage of economies of scale. Even if the electricity is fossil fuel generated, a power plant can be far more efficient at turning that fossil fuel into energy than your car engine can.
This is different than saying this charging reality is true for everyone right this second, but they key point is that it's possible for EVs while it is fundamentally impossible for traditional internal combustion vehicles. Your ICE car is never going to be able to be refueled at home overnight or at work during the day. It will never be able to take advantage of solar or wind or nuclear energy. Refueling an ICE car might be fairly convenient now, but this is as good as it gets, it's never going to get any better. My current situation doesn't allow me to charge an EV at work or home, so it would be marginally less convenient for me. But that's pretty fixable in the grand scheme of things, while I'm never going to be able to refuel my ICE car while I sleep.
Anyone doing the comparison between ICE and EV now and not accounting for all the extra upside room to grow EVs still have (and ICE does not) is definitely missing the forest for the trees.