It is now a common complaint that the electronic media have corroded the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media. But several centuries ago the complaint was that certain intellectual skills, such as the powerful memory and extemporaneous eloquence that were intrinsic to oral culture, were being destroyed by the spread of literacy. So, what awaits us is probably a mere alteration of the human mind rather than its devolution. The reference to the complaint of several centuries ago that powerful memory and extemporaneous eloquence were being destroyed plays which one of the following roles in the argument? ['an example of a cultural change that did not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the human mind overall', 'possible evidence, mentioned and then dismissed, that might be cited by supporters of the hypothesis being criticized', 'an illustration of the general hypothesis being advanced that intellectual abilities are inseparable from the means by which people communicate', 'evidence supporting the claim that the intellectual skills fostered by the literary media are being destroyed by the electronic media']