Tires may be either underinflated, overinflated, or neither. We are pretty safe in assuming that underinflation or overinflation of tires harms their tread. After all, no one has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread. Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning? ['The argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate.', 'The argument fails to precisely define the terms "underinflation"and "overinflation. "', 'The argument rejects the possibility that what has not been proven is nevertheless true.', 'The argument overlooks that what is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.']