Question

in the following argument, identify the premise and conclusion, explain why the argument is deceptive, and, if possible, identify the type of fallacy it represents
the state has no right to take a life, so the death penalty should be abolished.
the premise is the state has no right to take a life. the conclusion is the death penalty should be abolished.
why is the argument deceptive? choose the correct answer below.
a. the premise and conclusion essentially say the same thing.
b. the argument artificially precludes choices that ought to be considered.
c. the fact that one event came before another event is not evidence that the first even caused the second event.
d. the argument attempts to evoke an emotional response instead of providing evidence to support the conclusion.

Explanation:

The premise "the state has no right to take a life" and the conclusion "the death penalty should be abolished" are essentially re - stating the same idea. A fallacy where the premise and conclusion are just different phrasings of the same concept is circular reasoning (also known as begging the question). In this case, the argument doesn't provide new evidence or reasoning beyond restating the claim in premise and conclusion.

Answer:

A. The premise and conclusion essentially say the same thing.