In a certain democratic country the legislature passed a new tax law over the principled objections of the parliamentary opposition. Some opposition leaders broke the new law by refusing to pay the new tax. They defended their lawbreaking by citing the historical precedent in the country of activists' having to break laws in winning for women the right to vote. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the opposition leaders' argument in defense of their actions? ['The activists fought for equality of the sexes, a principle easier to define than the goal pursued by the opposition leaders.', 'Although they had principled objections to the new law, the opposition leaders derived a personal monetary benefit from breaking the law.', 'The opposition leaders, unlike the activists, fought for a return to an earlier state of affairs.', 'The opposition leaders, unlike the activists, were part of the democratic process that they are defying.']