The quote literally explains how to reason about it.
What's more natural: looking at a change relative to 0, or looking at a change relative to all the other points? Personally, I think looking at a change relative to 0 makes much more sense. Trying to figure out the meaning of the points by looking at relative values is garbage, because there is no underlying exponent to justify the use of the logarithm.
What if it were reversed: what if the number of students dropped by 20% one year, and then when up by 25% the following year. How many students are now enrolled in my course compared to the beginning in this scenario?
That is, I compute the new size after adjusting by Y% first, and then take Z% of that. To me, this is still treating values as magnitudes from 0 and the Y% change is totally independent from the Z% change. I guess you can multiply Y and Z first, but that’s not how I think about it.
If the original author's had included a brief explanation of the unexpected looking axis label and its advantages, the whole problem would have been avoided. And I think the argument that "log scales are standard" is not a valid defense here, as this whole thread demonstrates.