3) Consider the following passage (taken from an article by Paul Edwards):

Suppose I see a group of five Eskimos standing on the corner of Sixth Avenue and 50th Street [in New York City] and I wish to explain why the group came to New York. Investigation reveals the following stories: Eskimo No. 1 did not enjoy the extreme cold in the polar region and decided to move to a warmer climate. No. 2 is the husband of No. 1; he loves her dearly and did not wish to live without her. No. 3 is the son of Eskimos 1 and 2; he is too small and too weak to oppose his parents. No. 4 saw an advertisement in the New York Times for an Eskimo to appear on television. No. 5 is a private detective engaged by the Pinkerton Agency to keep an eye on Eskimo No. 4.

Let us assume that we have now explained in the case of each of the five Eskimos why he or she is in New York. Somebody then asks: "All right, but what about the group as a whole, why is it in New York?" This would plainly be an absurd question.

Based on the lecture, who would deny that we have explained why the group as a whole is in New York, once we have the stated explanations for why each individual Eskimo is there (i.e., because one came for the warmer climate, one came to be with his wife, etc)?

1) Leibniz, but not Hume
2) Hume, but not Leibniz
3) both Leibniz and Hume
4) neither Leibniz nor Hume