It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy. The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above? ['The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it:No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant.', 'The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it:No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful.', 'The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law.', 'The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.']