One way to refute a deductive argument is to prove that what is claimed as evidence is false. This particularly applies to the deductive argument from evil. For premise 42 to work, we must be convinced that there is more evil than necessary. But this certainly does not go without saying. In reality, even 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 see later). The real problem is that with the rephrasing 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 convincing. It's now about identifying the amount of evil in the universe, not proving that God and evil are logically linked.