Joshua Smith' s new novel was criticized by the book editor for The Daily Standard as implausible. That criticism, like so many other criticisms from the same source in the past, is completely unwarranted. As anyone who has actually read the novel would agree, each one of the incidents in which Smith' s hero gets involved is the kind of incident that could very well have happened to someone or other. Which one of the following is the most serious error of reasoning in the argument? ['It relies on the assumption that a criticism can legitimately be dismissed as unwarranted if it is offered by someone who had previously displayed questionable judgment.', 'It calls into question the intellectual integrity of the critic in order to avoid having to address the grounds on which the criticism is based.', 'It ignores the fact that people can agree about something even though what they agree about is not the case.', 'It takes for granted that a whole story will have a given characteristic if each of its parts has that characteristic.']