Popular science publications that explain new developments in science face a dilemma. In order to reach a wide audience, these publications must rely heavily on metaphorical writing, which usually fails to convey the science accurately. If the writing is more rigorous, they get the science right but fail to reach a wide audience. These publications should ttherefore give up trying to explain new developments in science to a wide audience. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument? ['In reporting scientific developments, it is better to fail to reach a wide audience than to be inaccurate.', 'In reporting scientific developments, it is better to reach a wide audience than to be accurate.', 'Science publications should balance the use of metaphors with more rigorous writing.', 'Even the most rigorous explanations of some scientific concepts must still contain metaphors.']