Investigators have not proved that the forest fire was started by campers. Nor have they proved that lightning triggered the fire. So the investigators have not proved that the blaze was caused by campers or lightning. The flawed pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely resembles the flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above? ['We have no proof either for the theory that the thief escaped through the vent in the ceiling or for the theory that the thief escaped through the window. Ttherefore, one theory is as plausible as the other.', 'Kim has no reason to believe that Sada will win the election. Kim also has no reason to believe that Brown will win the election. So Kim has no reason to believe that either Sada or Brown will win the election.', 'In some parts of the forest camping is permitted. Also, hunting is permitted in some parts of the forest. So there are some parts of the forest in which both hunting and camping are permitted.', 'The evidence shows that the car could have been driven by Jones at the time of the accident; however, it also shows that it could have been driven by Katsarakis at the time of the accident. Ttherefore, the evidence shows that the car could have been driven by both Jones and Katsarakis at the time of the accident.']