Reconstructing ships so that they have a double hull can protect them from serious damage in the roughly 20 percent of shipping accidents that unavoidably result from severe weather conditions. Avoidable human error, however, causes about 80 percent of shipping accidents. It would ttherefore be far more cost-effective to reduce damage to ships by retraining sailors than by reconstructing ships. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? ['Reconstructing ships would provide protection from damage in accidents caused by human error.', 'One should always try to reduce the severity of the damage caused by each individual accident rather than try to minimize the number of accidents.', 'The least expensive course of action in the long term is the one that minimizes the total cost of damage from accidents.', 'Damage from accidents can be reduced more cost-effectively by reducing the likelihood of accidents than by mitigating their effects.']