When a nation is on the brink of financial crisis, its government does not violate free-market principles if, in order to prevent economic collapse, it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money. After all, the right to free speech does not include the right to shout "Fire! " in a crowded theatre, and the harm done as investors and lenders rush madly to get their money out before everyone else does can be just as real as the harm resulting from a stampede in a theatre. The argument does which one of the following? ['tries to show that a set of principles is limited in a specific way by using an analogy to a similar principle that is limited in a similar way', 'presents numerous experimental results as evidence for a general principle', 'applies an empirical generalization to reach a conclusion about a particular case', 'attempts to demonstrate that an explanation of a phenomenon is flawed by showing that it fails to explain a particular instance of that phenomenon']