Page 130 of Ruthless Court

“That’s an opinion, not a conclusion.”

“I cited twenty-seven sources.”

“You cited twenty-seven people who agree with you.”

“Should I cite people who are wrong?”

“You should acknowledge that power can create access without stripping away choice.”

“Access always comes with conditions.”

“So does every decision.”

“That doesn’t make the conditions ethical.”

“It makes your absolute claim weak.”

She stares at my screen, then pulls the laptop toward her and deletes two lines.

“What are you doing?”

“Fixing it.”

“You could admit I’m right first.”

“I could also light myself on fire.”

“You’d lose participation points.”

Her mouth twitches.

For the next hour, we work.

Actually work.

Hannah cuts half my introduction because she says I’m performing intelligence instead of making a point. I remove three of her case studies because she likes details enough to bury her argument beneath them.

She challenges each change until I justify it.

Then she listens.

Most people agree with me too quickly or push back because they want the thrill of challenging Kane Haverhill. Hannah only cares whether the point holds.

She catches a flaw in my rebuttal.

I find one in her conclusion.

By the time we finish the outline, our separate arguments fit together as if they were designed that way.

Hannah leans back and surveys the screen.

“This is annoyingly good.”

“I accept your apology.”

“I didn’t offer one.”

“You’re welcome.”