Editorial: The premier' s economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services. Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial's argument? ['rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely to fail', "trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people's fears of what could happen otherwise", 'criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself', 'presupposing what it sets out to establish']