According to Trinitarians, does Tuggy get Jesus' argument at John 10:33-36 right?

Dale Tuggy, a Biblical Unitarian, more formally presents Jesus' argument at John 10:34-36. > "34 Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you > are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and > the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 then what about the One whom the > Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me > of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?" Tuggy's formalization of Jesus' argument is 1. The Scriptures do not blaspheme. (premise) 2. The Scriptures address human recipients of God’s message as “gods.” (Psalm 82) 3. The Scriptures do not blaspheme when they address human recipients of God’s message as “gods.” (1, 2) 4. Jesus is God’s Messiah. (“the one whom the Father… sent into the world”) (premise) 5. [Jesus is greater than those human recipients of God’s message.] (4) 6. [The title “Son of God” (i.e. Messiah) is a less exalted title than “god” or “God”.] (unstated premise) 7. Therefore, it is not blasphemy to describe Jesus as God’s Son. (3, 5, 6) where premises assumed in the discussion between Jesus and the Jews are in brackets. As Tuggy continues, > "Jesus’s opponents grant 1 and 2, and so they must grant 3, which > follows from 1 and 2. They would also grant that 4 implies 5. But > they’re resisting 4, though Jesus has given them plenty of evidence > for 4, in the form of his miraculous works, given him by God to > validate his ministry. His opponents also assume, and would have to > grant 6, and that 7 follows from 3, 5, and 6. **If calling these lesser > people “gods” isn’t bad, then it just can’t be bad to give this > greater person (the Messiah) the lesser description, God’s Son.** > > In sum, **the whole issue hinges on 4.** The argument is valid (3 follows > from 1 and 2, and 7 follows from 3, 5, and 6), and they would have to > grant all the other other premises (1, 2, 6). In their blind anger, > they want to say that he’s blaspheming by saying that he and God are > “one” (i.e. working together). But **that charge of blasphemy, Jesus > brilliantly and forcefully points out, depends wholly on their > stubborn belief, against the preponderance of evidence available to > them, that Jesus is not God’s Messiah**. Deftly, he shows how their > charge of blasphemy assumes the very point at issue; it assumes that > he’s not the Messiah." According to Trinitarians, does Tuggy get Jesus' argument right? If not, where does Tuggy make a mistake?