If a piece of legislation is the result of negotiation and compromise between competing interest groups, it will not satisfy any of those groups. So, we can see that the recently enacted trade agreement represents a series of compromises among the various interest groups that are concerned with it, because all of those groups are clearly unhappy with it. Which one of the following most accurately describes a logical flaw in the argument? ['It takes for granted that no piece of legislation can ever satisfy all competing interest groups.', 'It concludes that a condition is necessary for a certain result merely from the claim that the condition leads to that result.', 'It draws a conclusion that is merely a disguised restatement of one of its premises.', 'It bases a conclusion about a particular case on a general principle that concerns a different kind of case.']