It has been argued that the immense size of Tyrannosaurus rex would have made it so slow that it could only have been a scavenger, not a hunter, since it would not have been able to chase down its prey. This, however, is an overly hasty inference. T. rex' s prey, if it was even larger than T rex, would probably have been slower than T. rex. The claim that T. rex could only have been a scavenger, not a hunter, plays which one of the following roles in the argument? ['It is offered as evidence that is necessary for drawing the conclusion advanced by the argument', 'It is a hypothesis that is claimed in the argument to be logically inconsistent with the conclusion advanced by the argument.', 'It is offered as evidence in support of a hypothesis that the argument concludes to be false.', 'It is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to undermine by calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence.']