Ornellas's Argument Analysis

Suzette gonzalez
In this essay I will address the issue of whether more states should enforce the death penalty. In her opinion piece, Lori Ornellas argues that the death penalty should be enforced by more states. In this essay I will demonstrate the flaws within her argument.
I will start by explaining Ornellas’s argument. I will introduce the premises she uses as support, and show the fallacies they contain. I will provide a conclusion as to why she's unable to conclude that more states should enforce the death penalty. Lastly an objection on Ornellas part will be provided, and then proven to be unsuccessful.
Lori Ornellas argues why more states should enforce the death penalty using two linked premises to support her conclusion. First, she states that “Opponents
Ornellas may have an objection to what I've said by saying that her premise of an innocent man not being executed is not an appeal to ignorance fallacy, but that there is really no proof of these events happening, and if there is no proof then it's not possible to say the system is flawed. However, she does not provide any evidence of this being true. She just says it's not true because it has not been disproved.
In this essay i have addressed the issue of whether more states should enforce the death penalty. I have i have concentrated on ornellas argument, which concludes that the death penalty should be enforced by more states. I have stated both of her premises, which she uses to support her conclusion, and how they suffer from fallacies. I have concluded that her premises are unsuccessful in supporting the conclusion; therefore, making her entire argument unsuccessful. Lastly, i have provided an objection on Ornellas part, and showed how that was unsuccessful as