In his new book on his complex scientific research, R frequently imputes bad faith to researchers disagreeing with him. A troubling aspect of R' s book is his stated conviction that other investigators' funding sources often determine what "findings" those investigators report. Add to this that R has often shown himself to be arrogant, overly ambitious, and sometimes plain nasty, and it becomes clear that R' s book does not merit attention from serious professionals. The author of the book review commits which one of the following reasoning errors? ['taking it for granted that an investigator is unlikely to report findings that are contrary to the interests of those funding the investigation', 'presenting as facts several assertions about the book under review that are based only on strong conviction and would be impossible for others to verify', 'using an attack on the character of the writer of the book as evidence that his person is not competent on matters of scientific substance', 'dismissing a scientific theory by giving a biased account of it']