In view of the considerable length of the police chief' s tenure as head of the department, the chief should be held accountable for the widespread corruption in the department. That no evidence was discovered that the chief was involved in any way in the corruption does not allow us to escape this conclusion. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the argument? ['If corruption is rampant among a certain group, then the person in charge cannot be expected to take corrective action if that person has not been in charge for very long.', 'A supervisor should not be held accountable for widespread corruption among his or her subordinates unless the supervisor could reasonably be expected to know about that corruption.', 'Any supervisor who knowingly tolerates widespread corruption among his or her subordinates should be held accountable .', 'If a person has been in a position of authority for a long time, then there is no excuse that can absolve the person of responsibility for widespread corruption among subordinates.']