Giordano Bruno, the Renaissance philosopher, must have been a spy for England during the time he served in the French embassy there. English state records show that a spy who foiled at least two assassination plots against Queen Elizabeth of England was in place in the French embassy in London at that time. Since the spy is identified in confidential English state documents only as "the only clergyman working at the French embassy" at that time, Bruno must have been the spy: Bruno had been ordained a member of the clergy long before he started work at the French embassy. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the force of the evidence advanced in the argument? ["During Bruno's tenure in the French embassy, a high degree of tension and an atmosphere of mutual suspicion prevailed between France and England.", 'Long before his employment at the embassy, Bruno had been excommunicated from his church and thereafter neither dressed nor functioned as a member of the clergy.', 'The French ambassador at the time was a man who trusted Bruno implicitly, often defending him from the criticisms of others on the embassy staff.', 'During the Renaissance, well-educated members of the clergy often served in nonclerical roles as tutors, secretaries, and personal assistants to wealthy aristocrats.']