You add the energies in the signal and aliased curves.
Now if you assume the aliasing is completely de-correlated with the signal, you can treat them as two independent sources (like a "random walk" with 2 steps in statistics) you can use an RMS summation of the amplitudes.
Since the crossover at 4 kHz has both amplitudes as 0.7, or -3dB, the result is simply a flat line at 1 independent of frequency.
But it's a dangerous assumption and probably wrong for certain signals, so it's worth considering a worst case scenario, where the aliasing is perfectly correlated and in phase with the signal : in this case you can add amplitudes, giving a peak of 1.4 (+3dB) at 4 kHz.
With regard to:
Can you fix this problem by increasing the filter order? Not really. Figure 7 on page 10 shows the result of using a 6th-order Butterworth low pass filter instead of a 1st-order filter. We’ve improved the situation
Well he's right : you can't fix the problem simply by increasing filter order. You can improve it (decreasing the "alias" energy below 4 kHz and narrowing the +3dB peak in the worst case, thus decreasing its area). Thus you have improved the situation somewhat, but not fixed it.
A fix : if you need to reduce the aliasing energy below some level : would involve reducing the filter cutoff frequency - as well as optionally increasing the order - such that the attenuation at Fs/2 (4 kHz here) met your target.
And regarding comments to the other answer : aliasing below 4 kHz is the system response (due to the sampling process) to energy after the filter above 4 kHz. (which btw sounds nasty).
Aliasing at 7 kHz is huge because the filter has no attenuation at 1 kHz. It would also sound nasty but will be removed by the DAC's reconstruction filter.