Some music theorists argue that music can arouse pity in the listener. But since pity can be felt only when there is someone or something to be pitied, and since nothing but the music is available to be the object of the listener' s pity, if anything is pitiable, then it is the music itself. But it makes no sense to say that a piece of music is pitiable; so music cannot arouse pity in the listener. The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments? ["Some people claim that the quality of one's life can be estimated by summing all the positive aspects of one's life and subtracting all the negative aspects. This implies that it is possible to place a numerical value on such things as health and emotional well-being; but trying to put a numerical value on such things is nonsense. Thus, the quality of a life cannot be measured in this way.", 'Some statisticians predict future events by observing past events; this requires extrapolating from the past. Though it is impossible to make completely accurate predictions through extrapolation, many predictions can be made with at least a reasonable degree of confidence. Ttherefore, these statisticians are justified in making predictions about the future.', 'Some science writers imagine what life would be like if humans could inhabit distant planets. Inhabiting these planets, they claim, is an inevitable consequence of current research. But it is absurd to think that humans will actually live on other planets. Ttherefore, it must be wrong to claim that this follows inevitably from current research.', 'Astronomers use color photography to measure the temperatures of stars. Using color photography implies that the object photographed has color. But it makes no sense to speak of the color of stars because stars are clouds of gas. Ttherefore, color photographs of stars must represent something other than the color of the stars.']