Scientist: While studying centuries-old Antarctic ice deposits, I found that several years of relatively severe atmospheric pollution in the 1500s coincided with a period of relatively high global temperatures. So it is clear in this case that atmospheric pollution did cause global temperatures to rise. The reasoning in the scientist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument ['draws a general conclusion based on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative', 'takes for granted that the method used for gathering data was reliable', 'infers, merely from a claim that two phenomena are associated, that one phenomenon causes the other', 'inappropriately generalizes from facts about a specific period of time to a universal claim']