Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car and in doing so knocked snow on the sidewalk. This same snow melted and refroze, forming ice on which the plaintiff fell, breaking her hip. We argue that the defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff, because malice is intention to cause harm and the defendant intentionally removed the snow from his car and put it on the sidewalk, which, unbeknownst to the defendant at the time, would subsequently cause the injury suffered by the plaintiff. The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the lawyer's argument? ['Edwina bought a car from Mr. Yancy, then resold it. Unbeknownst to Edwina, Mr. Yancy had stolen the car. So Edwina sold a stolen car.', "Alice asked her sister to lie in court. Unbeknownst to Alice's sister, lying in court is against the law. So what Alice asked her sister to do was illegal.", 'Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the mincemeat pie was poisonous. So Bruce wanted to eat poison.', 'Deon had lunch with Ms. Osgood. Unbeknownst to Deon, Ms. Osgood is generally thought to be an industrial spy. So Deon had lunch with an industrial spy.']