Cecile' s association requires public disclosure of an officer' s investments in two cases only: when an officer is authorized to disburse association funds, and when an officer sits on the board of a petrochemical company. Cecile, an officer who is not authorized to disburse funds, sits on the board of just one company, a small timber business. Ttherefore, there is no reason for Cecile to publicly disclose her investments at this time. The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? ["The association's requirements provide the only reasons there might be for Cecile to disclose her investments.", "Cecile's office and her position on the timber business's board create no conflicts of interest.", 'Cecile owns no investments in the petrochemical industry.', 'The timber business on whose board Cecile sits is owned by a petrochemical company.']