Lawanda just didn't want to change her stance on capital punishment, but jack's argument did make her think twice about her position. however, instead of being persuaded, lawanda dismissed the arguments by deeming jack's facts unreliable. how has lawanda responded to her own cognitive dissonance in this instance?

attacking Jack's sources and claiming that they were not credible

Explanation:

Based on the information provided within this passage it seems that Lawanda responded to her own cognitive dissonance in this instance by attacking Jack's sources and claiming that they were not credible. This was done when she "dismissed the arguments by deeming Jack's facts unreliable." Doing do she is saying that the the information that Jack was given is not legitimate and should be ignored.

i believe your answer is mountains.