Some people see no harm in promoting a folk remedy that in fact has no effect. But there is indeed harm: many people who are convinced to use an ineffective remedy continue with it for years rather than pursuing conventional treatments that would almost certainly help them. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument? ['It is harmful to interfere with someone doing something that is likely to benefit that person.', 'To convince people of something for which one knows there is no evidence is to be dishonest.', 'A person is responsible for harm he or she does to someone even if the harm was done unintentionally.', 'One should not promote a remedy if one believes that using that remedy will cause harm.']