It appears the respondent has failed to grasp the tone and intent of Nikhil's essay. Nikhil acknowledges that, in informal English, many people use the phrase '100%' when expressing a certain level of confidence in their statement. However, as Nikhil highlights, this is an incredibly unrealistic expectation. In academic and scientific settings, certainty is an incredibly difficult, though not impossible thing to attain. According to Nikhil, the highest level of certainty one can achieve is 98%, and even this level of certainty should be reserved for only the most obvious of statements, such as 2+2=4. Anything less, even 90%, should be taken with a grain of salt when making decisions or forming opinions.
The respondent may claim that it is 100% certain that the sky is blue or the earth is round, but that's not what Nikhil was referring to. He was speaking about statistical certainty, not absolutes about our physical world. The respondent goes on to claim that the use of '100%' is an appropriate way to express one's confidence in a statement without having to worry about the technicalities of statistical certainty - again, missing the point entirely. Nikhil was not suggesting that 100% was never an appropriate expression of confidence - he was suggesting that it was inappropriate to use 100% when expressing a certain level of confidence.
Thus, it appears that the retort to Nikhil's essay has misunderstood his point entirely and fails to recognize that while '100%' may be an acceptable expression of confidence in informal English, it's an unrealistic expectation and should not be used as a measure of confidence when making decisions. UrRong doubting Nikhil - his original premise was spot on!