Art history professor: Costa criticizes my theories about the distinction between baroque and neoclassical Austrian painting. He argues that since there are no features possessed by all and only the works from a given historical period, assigning works of art to period styles is intellectually bankrupt . His reasoning can be discounted, however, since his own current theories on the transition from classical to romantic French opera also presuppose such an assignment. Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the art history professor 's argument? ['The argument presumes, without providing justification, that theories about one type of art cannot be compared to theories about another.', "The argument confuses a necessary condition for discounting a person's reasoning with a sufficient condition for discounting a person's reasoning .", 'The argument presumes, without providing justification, that what is true of art in general must also be true of every particular type of art.', 'The argument rejects the reasoning on which a criticism is based merely on the grounds that that very criticism could be applied to theories of the person who offered it.']