The article argues that simply attacking one part of an argument without addressing the whole thing is not logical. In the context of debunking evolution's impact on our moral beliefs, just discrediting the empirical evidence is not enough. The authors show that many critics of this debunking argument only focus on undermining the empirical claim. They suggest that doubting one part of an argument should only lead to some doubt, not complete rejection. The conclusion of a valid argument should not be doubted more than its premises.