Environmentalists who seek stricter governmental regulations controlling water pollution should be certain to have their facts straight. For if it turns out, for example, that water pollution is a lesser threat than they proclaimed, then there will be a backlash and the public will not listen to them even when dire threats exist. Which one of the following best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument above? ['Whoever wants to advance a political agenda ought to take the time to convince legislators that their own political careers are at stake in the matter at hand; otherwise, the agenda will simply be ignored.', 'Politicians who defend the rights of unpopular constituencies ought to see to it that they use cool, dispassionate rhetoric in their appeals. Even if they have their facts straight, inflammatory rhetoric can cause a backlash that results in more negative reactions to these constituencies, whether or not they are deserving of more rights.', 'People who are trying to convince others to take some sort of action should make every effort to present evidence that is emotionally compelling. Such evidence is invariably more persuasive than dry, technical data, even when the data strongly support their claims.', 'Middle-level managers who ask their companies to hire additional employees should have strong evidence that doing so will benefit the company; otherwise, higher-level managers will refuse to follow their suggestions to hire additional employees even when doing so really would benefit the company.']