You can certainly challenge anybody's reasoning just as well as you can challenge anybody in court over any matter. But it requires more than typing first thing that comes into your mind for such a challenge to stick, jfyi.
But not in this case, the first thing that came to mind was a sufficient rebuttal.
Since you are constantly referencing the legal system you should remember it is the prosecutors role to prove the hypothesis. It is not on the defence to disprove it.
Merely rebutt sufficiently.
You have not made a single compelling argument for not testing coders with the current model.
Since you are constantly referencing the legal system you should remember it is the prosecutors role to prove the hypothesis. It is not on the defence to disprove it.
Merely rebutt sufficiently.
You have not made a single compelling argument for not testing coders with the current model.