Newspaper subscriber: Arnot' s editorial argues that by making certain fundamental changes in government we would virtually eliminate our most vexing social ills. But clearly this conclusion is false. After all, the argument Arnot makes for this claim depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public. Which one of the following most accurately expresses a flaw in the argument's reasoning? ["it treats a change that is required for virtual elimination of society's most vexing social ills as a change that will guarantee the virtual elimination of those ills", 'it repudiates a claim merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it', "it distorts the opponent's argument and then attacks this distorted argument", 'it uses the key term "government" in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion']