I had a similar response to the article, but I can see at least one reason why this explanation doesn't fit. Despite any inclinations we may have P vs. NP is still unsolved. So, claiming that a problem is in NP is "easy to check but hard to solve" is not necessarily true (if P == NP, it is both easy to check and to solve).
The original article does a good job of not making this assumption, and because of this gains the ability to pose the question:
> Many people want to know if there are any NP problems that are not P Problems
hmmm. it's true that my text is wrong in that way, but couldn't you fix it with a "maybe" or "appear" and then explain the open question afterwards? or maybe the conditional nature of the text then becomes too complex?
The original article does a good job of not making this assumption, and because of this gains the ability to pose the question:
> Many people want to know if there are any NP problems that are not P Problems