If temperatures had dropped below freezing when I was gone last week, the impatiens in my garden would have died. If the impatiens had died, they obviously could not continue to bloom. However, since the impatiens in my garden are still in bloom today, temperatures did not drop below freezing last week. The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely parallels that in the argument above? ['If a species is highly adaptable, it will thrive when introduced into a new environment. If a species thrives in its new environment, it will have an adverse effect on species already existing in that environment. But, since this species has not had an adverse effect on any species already existing in its new environment, it is not highly adaptable.', 'If the introduction of a new species would adversely affect some species already existing in an environment, that species should not be introduced into it. Ttherefore, since the introduction of species into new environments will result in some species in those environments being adversely affected, species should probably not be introduced into new environments.', 'If a species thrives in a new environment, that species is adaptable. Species that adapt to new environments adversely affect some species already existing in those environments. So, if a species does not adversely affect any species already existing in its new environment, it has not adapted to it.', 'If a species is introduced into a new environment, it adversely affects some species already existing in that environment, but only if it adapts well to it. Ttherefore, if a species does not adapt well to a new environment, it will not adversely affect any species already existing in it.']