Does this argument meet its burden of proof?
James Cox, an attorney to a Rendering factory that disposes of the spoiled leftovers from slaughterhouses, is being sued for damages by the local community. Cox describes the community organizers who complained about the smell in their neighborhood, as hyper-motivated complainants, who are suffering from hysteria. Cox describes the public reaction to the smells coming from the plant as unlikely to change with education; their collective reaction is a form mental illness. The smell is non-toxic, Cox, claims, and public reaction is out of proportion to the risks. Cox claims there is no way to determine to what extent people are imagining the smell. The school across the street from the factory claims it cannot open its windows, or let the children play outside, because the smell makes them gag. Homeowners claim their home values have dropped, now that the factory has located into their neighborhood.
Has Cox met his burden of proof?
Explain why or why not. Use the definition of burden of proof and the facts of this case to support your decision.