Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of persons. As evidence of this, I submit the following: suppose that we had a complete scientific account of the physical aspects of some particular human action -- every neurological, physiological, and environmental event involved. Even with all that we would obviously still not truly comprehend the action or know why it occurred. Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning? ['It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion.', 'No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand.', 'The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true.', 'It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false.']