One of the ways to disprove a deductive argument is to demonstrate that what is being cited as evidence is wrong. This is especially true for the deductive argument from evil. For premise 42 to work, we must be convinced that there is more evil than necessary. But this is certainly not obvious. Indeed, even those theists who admit the existence of evil would never accept that there is more evil than necessary. In this case, the evidence presented in the deductive argument is implausible (as we will discuss later). The real problem is that, with the reformulation of premise 3 – from “evil exists” to “there is more evil than necessary” the nature of the argument has changed. The deductive argument has become evidential. Now it's about identifying the amount of evil in the universe, not about proving that God and evil are logically connected