The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee' s own words, has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation. However, people' s actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer. Ttherefore, since this practice avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur if people' s exact words were quoted but their ideas only partially expressed, it is entirely defensible. Which one of the following is a questionable technique used in the argument? ['claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession', 'answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge', 'concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary', 'offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice']