There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results. Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument? ['Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.', 'In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.', 'Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.', 'Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.']