Paula: In recent years, DNA evidence has cleared many people who had been wrongfully executed by the state. Capital punishment is therefore morally wrong and ought to be abolished.
Phil: It is certainly tragic that innocent people have been put to death. But this is a problem with the application of the death penalty, and as such does not invalidate the death penalty itself. Many innocent people are wrongfully imprisoned, but I doubt you would argue that imprisonment is wrong.
Phil does which of the following in response to Paula's argument?
1. He introduces new evidence that undermines Paula's claim.
2. He points out that Paula's argument is selfcontradictory.
3. He uses the same evidence to draw the opposite conclusion.
4. He rejects the source of Paula's evidence.
5. He dismisses Paula's evidence as support for her conclusion.
[spoiler]oa : 5[/spoiler]
Please explain the answer. I went with 1 thinking that it Phil introduces new evidence to counter Paula's arg.
Phil: It is certainly tragic that innocent people have been put to death. But this is a problem with the application of the death penalty, and as such does not invalidate the death penalty itself. Many innocent people are wrongfully imprisoned, but I doubt you would argue that imprisonment is wrong.
Phil does which of the following in response to Paula's argument?
1. He introduces new evidence that undermines Paula's claim.
2. He points out that Paula's argument is selfcontradictory.
3. He uses the same evidence to draw the opposite conclusion.
4. He rejects the source of Paula's evidence.
5. He dismisses Paula's evidence as support for her conclusion.
[spoiler]oa : 5[/spoiler]
Please explain the answer. I went with 1 thinking that it Phil introduces new evidence to counter Paula's arg.
