Critic: Fillmore, an influential television executive, argues that watching television regularly is not detrimental to very young children. Fillmore bases this on the claim, which I grant, that children can learn much that is beneficial from television. But we should reject Fillmore' s argument, because clearly it is to Fillmore' s benefit to convince parents that television is not harmful to their children. Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the critic's reasoning? ['It is based on an appeal to the views of someone with questionable authority on the subject matter.', 'It rejects an argument solely on the grounds that the argument could serve the interests of the person making that argument.', 'It bases its conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with one another.', "It takes a necessary condition for something's being harmful to be a sufficient condition for being harmful."]