People who take what others regard as a ridiculous position should not bother to say, "I mean every word! " For either their position truly is ridiculous, in which case insisting that they are serious about it only exposes them to deeper embarrassment, or else their position has merit, in which case they should meet disbelief with rational argument rather than with assurances of their sincerity. Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above? ['People whose taste in clothes is being criticized should not reply, "Every penny I spent on these clothes I earned honestly. " For the issue raised by the critics is not how the money was come by but rather whether it was spent wisely.', 'Scholars who champion unpopular new theories should not assume that the widespread rejection of their ideas shows that they "must be on the right track. " The truth is that few theories of any consequence are either wholly right or wholly wrong and thus there is no substitute for patient work in ascertaining which parts are right.', 'A practice that has been denounced as a poor practice should not be defended on the grounds that "this is how we have always done it. " If the practice is a poor one, so much the worse that it has been extensively used; if it is not a poor one, there must be a better reason for engaging in it than inertia.', 'People who are asked why they eat some of the unusual foods they eat should not answer, "because that is what I like. " This sort of answer will sound either naive or evasive and thus will satisfy no one.']