In her new book on ancient Egyptian historical research, M frequently attributes bad faith to researchers disagreeing with her. A troubling aspect of M' s book is her stated conviction that other archaeologists' funding sources often determine what "findings" archaeologists report. Add to this that M has often shown herself to be pompous, pushy, and sometimes just plain cruel, and it becomes clear that M' s book does not merit attention from serious professionals. The author of the book review commits which one of the following reasoning errors? ['using an attack on the character of the writer of the book as evidence that this person is not competent on matters of scientific substance', 'presenting as facts several assertions about the book under review that are based only on strong conviction and would be impossible for others to verify', 'taking it for granted that an archaeologist is unlikely to report findings that are contrary to the interests of those funding the investigation', 'failing to distinguish between the criteria of being true and of being sufficiently interesting to merit attention']