All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. Ttherefore, if the press agent told every reporter everything about the accident, then no reporter knows any more about it than any other reporter. If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. However, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident. It follows that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to recognize that which one of the following is consistent with the facts the argument presents? ['The press agent may not know any more about the accident than the most knowledgeable reporter.', 'No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.', 'Even if some reporter knows more about the accident than all of the other reporters, that reporter need not scoop any other reporter.', 'Some reporter may have been told something about the accident that the reporter tells all of the other reporters.']