Farmer: A report has just been released that criticizes our corn, alleging that the genetically-modified seed we use is harmful to consumers. However, the report was commissioned by our main competition -- a large-scale corporate farm. The conflict of interest is so obvious that consumers can continue to eat our corn without worry. Which one of the following best explains why the farmer's argument is vulnerable to criticism? ["The farmer fails to elaborate on the corporate farm's conflict of interest.", 'The farmer draws a conclusion without considering alternative motivations for the commissioning the report by the corporate farm.', "The farmer wrongly assumes that a conflict of interest automatically negates the validity of the report's conclusion.", 'The farmer does not provide any evidence as to why their corn is safe for consumption.']