How have the courts treated a prosecutor's hypothetical facts in a criminal case?

Defendant has pointed to no fact in the prosecutor's hypothetical facts which was not rooted in the evidence presented at trial. Instead, he paradoxically argues that the statement of hypothetical facts was improper because it did not state that defendant knew the victims were using drugs in the car and that they had bought drugs from a gang, while at the same time recognizing that including them in the hypothetical would have been improper, as there was no evidence of such facts. (See People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1045-1046.)