Under the legal doctrine of jury nullification, a jury may legitimately acquit a defendant it believes violated a law if the jury believes that law to be unjust. Proponents argue that this practice is legitimate because it helps shield against injustice. But the doctrine relies excessively on jurors' objectivity. When juries are empowered to acquit on grounds of their perceptions of unfairness, they too often make serious mistakes. The argument uses which one of the following techniques in its attempt to undermine the position that it attributes to the proponents of jury nullification? ['attacking the motives of the proponents of the doctrine', 'arguing that the application of the doctrine has undesirable consequences', 'attempting to show that a premise put forward in support of the position is false', 'identifying an inconsistency within the reasoning used to support the position']