This is an approach advocated for by instrumentalists. I shall explicate what it is that they reject. But her arguments are not that convincing. I indicated early on that I do take there to be an extra-systematic idea of validity to which formal logical systems aim to give precise expression. First thing I dislike about her explanation is the intuitive judgement of informal arguments.
Intuition is rather an unsafe means of cognition.
Thus I reject the concept of extra-systematic validity as vague and imprecise. The only safe way to find out if an informal argument is valid or not is to transform it into a formal argument and judge its syntactic or semantic validity in the system. It follows that knowledge of correctness of a logical system cannot be based on the correspondence between arguments valid in a system and arguments valid extra systematically. Let us imagine that I intuitively judge an informal argument bad, but when I find the logical structure of the argument it turns out to be valid in the logical system. I think laws of logic are discovered to help us adjust our reasoning and use of language.