Political strategist: Clearly, attacking an opposing candidate on philosophical grounds is generally more effective than attacking the details of the opponent' s policy proposals. A philosophical attack links an opponent' s policy proposals to an overarching ideological scheme, thereby telling a story and providing context. This makes the attack emotionally compelling. Which one of the following is an assumption required by the political strategist' s argument? ['The stories that people are most likely to remember are those that are emotionally compelling.', 'Political attacks that tell a story are able to provide more context than those that do not.', "Voters are typically uninterested in the details of candidates' policy proposals.", 'Political attacks that are emotionally compelling are generally more effective than those that are not.']