The reason J. S. Bach is remembered is not that he had a high ratio of outstanding compositions to mediocre compositions. It is rather because he was such a prolific composer. He wrote more than a thousand full-fledged compositions, so it was inevitable that some of them would be outstanding and, being outstanding, survive the ages. Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? ['Bach wrote many compositions that were considered mediocre in his lifetime, and a large proportion of these compositions have been forgotten.', "Several of Bach's contemporaries who produced more works than he did have been largely forgotten.", "The exact number of Bach's compositions is not known, since many of them have been lost to posterity.", 'There are a few highly regarded composers who wrote a comparatively small number of compositions.']