The true scientific significance of a group of unusual fossils discovered by the paleontologist Charles Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott' s own classification. Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment. His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true. Which one of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used in the argument? ['It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion.', 'It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions.', "It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source.", 'It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed.']