I see where Dean is coming from with this. I myself, have used this argument more then once and have, at times, received the reply that I was using a reductio ad absurdum. I do, however, understand the economic rational behind said argument with Dr. Casey’s second post. It brings the defendant to a point where they should question why X amount of MW is sufficient, and not completely arbitrary. But to Dean’s original point, would this be considered a reductio ad absurdum rebuttal to the MW?
