A severe blow to the head can cause one to lose consciousness; from this some people infer that consciousness is a product of the brain and cannot survive bodily death. But a radio that becomes damaged may suddenly cease to broadcast the program it had been receiving, and we do not conclude from this that the program itself has ceased to exist. Similarly, more substantial evidence would be needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death. Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the example of the damaged radio? ['It is cited as evidence that consciousness does in fact survive bodily death.', 'It is cited as the primary piece of evidence for the conclusion that the relationship of consciousness to the brain is analogous to that of a radio program to the radio that receives it.', 'It is cited as a counterexample to a widely accepted belief about the nature of consciousness.', 'It is cited as a case analogous to loss of consciousness in which people do not draw the same sort of conclusion that some people draw about consciousness.']