It is easy for a laymen to assume that Occam's Razor has greater argumentative power than it actually does, so pointing out its limits can be helpful.
Occam's Razor is a very useful tool in philosophy and science. It is so useful and so often used implicitly if not explicitly that it is easy for a laymen who is not deeply steeped in formal logic and the limits of other forms of reasoning to believe it is absolute or nearly so. Because of that, even someone invoking Occam's Razor to support their argument might reasonably acknowledge its limits in the same breath.
And if you are countering an argument that makes use of Occam's Razor, then naturally you are likely to start by pointing out that its a rule of thumb and has severe limits. You may well not stop there and may provide further arguments, but you will almost certainly start there if the other side has invoked that.
Thus, you will see the reminder frequently that it has limits. A person using it will acknowledge the limits of the argument to be intellectually honest and a person attacking an argument that invokes it will almost necessarily start by pointing out its limits.
Its also worth noting that Occam's Razor is familiar to an average laymen on the street while terms like abductive reasoning are not. Someone who uses the term abductive reasoning with the expectation that the other side understands the term can safely assume that their conversational partner is probably familiar with its limits. On the other hand, many people have at least heard of Occam's Razor without necessarily understanding its limits. So, it makes sense in that way that discussion of the two will go together.