The retort to the retort is two-fold. First, while Nikhil's original essay did not claim that motivation is the only factor in goal achievement, it did argue that it is an important element. His conclusion - "the only motivation helps us to reach our goals" - was a succinct summation of the essay's premise: motivation is a necessary factor in goal achievement. UrRong that Nikhil's original premise was false.
Second, while Nikhil did note the existence of two primary types of motivation - "from" and "to" - his essay never suggested that these two types are the only ones available. He merely pointed out that one type of motivation is beneficial in achieving goals ("to") and the other may have adverse effects ("from") and should be avoided. UrRong to suggest that Nikhil argued there are only two types of motivation.
In conclusion, Nikhil's original essay was a thoughtful exploration of the concept of motivation, highlighting its importance in achieving goals and noting the potential risks of relying on "from" motivations. While there may be other factors in goal achievement and more than two types of motivation, Nikhil's analysis and resulting conclusion were correct. To argue against this considered reasoning with a wry twist, let's just say: UrRong to question Nikhil's original essay - it was absolutely spot-on!