> That isn't making them look like an idiot, reducing them, or demolishing their position. I think he's saying that he can reduce his opponent to those words - i.e., the author's argument fits together, the opponent…
They could try, but who would pay for it at a worthwhile price? The bank already defaulted. The loan has value and can be sold because the borrower is still solvent.
I took down the data manually and got a correlation coefficient of -0.28. I'm not sure whether it's even reasonable to expect the relationship to be linear but IIRC that level of correlation is about as high as you get…
> That isn't making them look like an idiot, reducing them, or demolishing their position. I think he's saying that he can reduce his opponent to those words - i.e., the author's argument fits together, the opponent…
They could try, but who would pay for it at a worthwhile price? The bank already defaulted. The loan has value and can be sold because the borrower is still solvent.
I took down the data manually and got a correlation coefficient of -0.28. I'm not sure whether it's even reasonable to expect the relationship to be linear but IIRC that level of correlation is about as high as you get…