Looks like I win this argument Mickey... Unless of cours you are some sort of savant
Since you have no idea what the economy is going to look like in 2014, you have no idea whether or not it would be a good or bad decision to go to Cooley, as you have no idea what job prospects it will lead to in 2014.
Conversly, I have no idea either.... However just like you can reference poor recent economic troubles, I can also mention the successful lawyers Cooley has produced.
Your "probablility" crap has been thrown out the window... You have no idea what the probability of a getting a job with a Cooley JD will be in 2014.
What did you score on the LSAT?
How in the world are you confusing likelihood with certainty? Mickey doesn't need certainty in his argument, because obviously there is no certainty concerning something as variable as the future economy. There is a significant likelihood, however, and that is what Mickey is basing his arguments on.
Let's look at an analogy that should illuminate your mistakes in this interaction with Mickey. Imagine the following exchange.
Mickey: It's been 100 degrees out the last four weeks, and, given that we're in Arizona and it's August, it's gonna be pretty damn hot tomorrow as well.
You: Ha! There is no way to know that! It is not certain that the sun will even rise tomorrow! And if that doesn't happen, it will be cold as shit! We can't test your hypothesis until tomorrow, so, for now, it is useless!
You are basically assuming that you need certainty in order to have knowledge (or maybe even the stronger claim, that you need certainty for your evidence to even have any weight). Either way, this is obviously wrong, and no legitimate thinker/philosopher has believed these claims in centuries.
TL;DR version: Craplicant's reasoning centers around the outrageous claim that you need certainty for your evidence to carry any weight.