The complaint was that those problems where incomprehensible gibberish and kids and adults alike had really hard time figuring them out.
From what I recall the core of the issue was that the question authors had some specific mental model of how addition and multiplication works and the questions were structured in a way that required figuring out what that model was (otherwise it was very hard to understand what was being asked).
Why does 2 + 3 = 5? Well, because it does. I don't even know what my mental model of addition is. I just do it. I stared at it long enough as a kid and I developed neural circuits that compute the result.
Instead if I asked:
I have two stars in a box. How many squares do I have to put in the box to have 5 shapes?
| * * | + | ??? | = | * * # # # |
Which is how I recall those weird maths questions were structured.Now you a have a (terrible IMHO) model of addition. That's what I think those monad tutorials do for you.
Those monad metaphors provide the same benefit. Even if some intuitions are wrong and you still need to learn the match to get the whole picture, at least you get a sense of (partial) understanding and purpose during the whole learning process thanks to the metaphor, instead of feeling lost the whole time.