Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money during the past decade. Yet Mullen' s tax records show heavy investment in business during that time and large profits; so Mullen' s proposal does not deserve our consideration. The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following? ["Do not vote for Smith's proposed legislation to subsidize child care for working parents; Smith is a working parent.", "Board member Timm's proposal to raise the salaries of the company's middle managers does not deserve to be considered; Timm's daughter is a middle manager at the company's headquarters.", "Dr. Wasow's analysis of the design of this bridge should not be taken seriously; after all, Dr. Wasow has previously only designed factory buildings.", "Do not put any credence in Dr. Han's recent proposal to ban smoking in all public places; Dr. Han is a heavy smoker."]