That's all totally correct; poor planning can lead to a poor outcome.
And poor design can also lead to a poor outcome, hence the use of a header tank and low level warning.
Why? Because the LSA manufacturer in this case refuses to acknowledge and rectify a known issue that results in an EFATO 15-20min after takeoff with full tanks.
Why? Because Rotax require a choked return line to mitigate vapour lock and the AC manufacturer in all their wisdom has sent the return line back to only one wing tank, and switching to the opposite wing tank will provide the pilot an EFATO within 15-20 minutes, or less depending on fuel volume being less than max. Why? Because the return line pumps all the opposite tank's contents out through the fuel vent of an already full fuel tank.. So what? Well if you've been flying on the opposite tank for 10-15minutes, switch tanks and fly some more before landing, then take off on both tanks and switch to the opposite tank thinking you have plenty fuel (because you have correctly run your inflight fuel logs haven't you), well you are at maybe 500', or less, departing and get an EFATO?
Hope the training kicks in but better to identify and fix the problem long before it gets to that; three forced landings due to unexplainable fuel starvation were trying to tell the pilot something was not right with the AC.
The idiot light is not there to deal with poor planning. The idiot light is there to notify the pilot that there is a situational issue with the planned fuel reserve and that an unforeseen leak down of the fuel system has occurred.
This is why a low level warning indicator and a header tank with 20min useable reserve is a good idea.