Researcher: Each subject in this experiment owns one car, and was asked to estimate what proportion of all automobiles registered in the nation are the same make as the subject' s car. The estimate of nearly every subject has been significantly higher than the actual national statistic for the make of that subject' s car. I hypothesize that certain makes of car are more common in some regions of the nation than in other regions; obviously, that would lead many people to overestimate how common their make of car is nationally. That is precisely the result found in this experiment, so certain makes of car must indeed be more common in some areas of the nation than in others. Which one of the following most accurately expresses a reasoning flaw in the researcher's argument? ['The argument attempts to draw its main conclusion from a set of premises that are mutually contradictory.', 'The argument treats a result that supports a hypothesis as a result that proves a hypothesis.', 'The argument applies a statistical generalization to a particular case to which it was not intended to apply.', 'The argument fails to estimate the likelihood that most subjects in the experiment did not know the actual statistics about how common their make of car is nationwide.']