Whittaker argues that because medical students who drop out before their second year never have a second year of medical school at all, there is no such thing as the number of medical students who drop out before "their" second year. Hudson responds with an analogy: since, by Whittaker's logic, there is no such thing as Hudson dying before "his" first million dollars in the bank, Hudson will necessarily live to become rich.

Both these arguments are flawed and frankly bizarre. Whittaker's argument relies on a technicality: since medical students who drop out technically never have a second year in medical school, it is incorrect to speak of "their" second year of medical school. Thus, there is no such thing as the number of medical students who drop out before their second year, since "their" second year doesn't exist.

In response, Hudson builds an analogy, saying that Whittaker would agree that there is "no such thing" as Hudson dying before "his" first million dollars in the bank, since by Whittaker's logic, if Hudson dies, he never had a million dollars to call "his". But then Hudson interprets Whittaker's phrase "no such thing" as meaning a certain state of affairs cannot happen, not that a certain combination of words is technically incorrect. Hudson points out that following this interpretation, he cannot die before making a million dollars, and so he is destined to become rich.

Again, both these arguments are strange and rely on shaky logic. Thankfully, for this question, we just need to describe how Hudson responds to Whittaker, not evaluate whether his response is valid. Hudson responds with an analogy leading to a conclusion that is implied to be implausible, since it is framed as a response to, and likely a rebuttal of, Whittaker's argument.