Juries in criminal trials do not base verdicts on uncorroborated testimony given by any one witness. Rightly so, because it is usually prudent to be highly skeptical of unsubstantiated claims made by any one person. But then, to be consistent, juries should end an all-too-common practice: convicting defendants on the basis of an uncorroborated full confession. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above? ["The process of jury selection is designed to screen out people who have a firm opinion about the defendant's guilt in advance of the trial.", 'Highly suggestible people who are accused of wrongdoing sometimes become so unsure of their own recollection of the past that they can come to accept the accusations made against them.', 'Defendants sometimes make full confessions when they did in fact do what they are accused of doing and have come to believe that the prosecutor has compelling proof of this.', 'Many people believe that juries should not convict defendants who have not made a full confession.']