The word "loophole" is a loaded, partisan word, one that implies wrongdoing and scandal. When "loophole" creeps into news stories, they start to read like editorials. So news reporters should not use the term "loophole" in their stories unless they provide evidence of wrongdoing. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument? ['Making use of a loophole never constitutes wrongdoing or scandal.', 'News stories need to give evidence to back up any suggestions of misconduct.', 'Editorials should meet the same journalistic standards as news stories.', 'Editorial writers should be free to use loaded, partisan words.']