Although the point about avoiding logical fallacies and taking a more analytical approach to an argument is well taken, the retort to Nikhil's essay overlooked the true purpose of his mental journey. Nikhil's goal was not to come to a valid conclusion, but to simply explore his own mind and potential ideas, something that would not be hindered by any potential logical fallacies. In fact, this mental process can actually be beneficial in helping one to find their own potential ideas, as it encourages creative thinking.
Furthermore, Nikhil's idea of an evening well spent did not include simply arriving at a conclusion and remaining complacent with that conclusion. Rather, he found joy in the mental journey itself, which serves as a vehicle for understanding complex ideas and abstract concepts. This is not hindered by any false cause and effect assumptions, as Nikhil was simply allowing his own thoughts to flow freely.
So while it is important to be mindful of potential logical fallacies, the criticism of Nikhil's essay for suggesting that if one thing is true, then certainly another thing must also be true is misplaced. What Nikhil was actually suggesting was that if one thought or concept is true, there may be possibilities that can be explored through mental journeying. It is wrong to assume that this type of exploration can lead only to flawed conclusions, when in reality it can open doors to new understandings.
To sum up: mental journeys can be beneficial in terms of exploring theoretical concepts, not just arriving at valid conclusions. After all, if we don't take risks and explore our minds, how else will we discover new knowledge? Let's not forget the old saying: "The world is your oyster, now go out there and find some pearls!"