Ethicist: Robert Gillette has argued that because a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure the over 3, 000 inherited disorders that affect humanity, deciphering the human genetic code will certainly benefit humanity despite its enormous cost. Gillette' s argument is not persuasive, however, because he fails to consider that such knowledge might ultimately harm human beings more than it would benefit them. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the ethicist's argument? ["Gillette's argument wrongly assumes that deciphering the genetic code will lead to cures for genetic disorders.", "Gillette's claim that a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure over 3, 000 disorders is overstated.", 'Deciphering the genetic code might ultimately harm human beings more than benefit them.', "Gillette's argument is unconvincing because it ignores certain possible consequences of genetic research."]