Anthropologist: After mapping the complete dominance hierarchy for a troupe of vervet monkeys by examining their pairwise interaction, we successfully predicted more complex forms of their group behavior by assuming that each monkey had knowledge of the complete hierarchy. Since our prediction was so accurate, it follows that the assumption we used to reach it was in fact true. Primatologist: Although I agree that your assumption helped you make those predictions, your conclusion does not follow. You might as well argue that since we can predict the output of some bank cash machines by assuming that these machines actually want to satisfy the customers' requests, these cash machines must really have desires. The primatologist uses which one of the following argumentative techniques in countering the anthropologist's argument? ["citing various facts that could not obtain if the anthropologist's conclusion were correct", "applying one of the anthropologist's reasoning steps in another argument in an attempt to show that it leads to an absurd conclusion", 'offering another argument that has as its premise the denial of the thesis that the anthropologist defends', "suggesting that the anthropologist's argument relies on a misinterpretation of a key scientific term"]