At some point in any discussion of societal justice, the only possible doctrinal defense seems to be "That is the way we do things here. " Different communities that each recognize the dignity and equality of all citizens will, for example, nevertheless settle on somewhat different provisions for the elderly. So we can see that general principles of justice are never sufficient to determine the details of social policies fixed within a particular state. Which one of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the argument concerning the general principles of justice? ['Two societies based on different principles of justice, each adhering to its own principles, had the same unemployment benefits.', 'Although each adhered to its own principles, a democracy and a monarchy each had the same distribution of wealth in its population.', 'Although two socialist states each adhered to the same electoral principles, one had a different type of machine for counting ballots in public elections than the other did.', 'Two states founded on and adhering to similar principles of justice had different requirements that had to be met in order to be eligible for government-subsidized day care.']