Consider this passage: "When I first heard the expression 'preponderance of evidence' I thought that it meant some maybe 80% if I had to quantify it. I learned the legal term 'preponderance of evidence' means more than 'reasonable suspicion,' 'reason to believe,' and 'substantial evidence.' But then I learned that 'preponderance of evidence' meant anything more than 50/50. Which was what, better than a coin flip? Certainly not the same as 'clear and convincing' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' I discovered. What do you think? Should anything more than 50/50 enough to use the word 'preponderance'?" The previous passage is best described as .

a. a narrative describing what a person learned
b. a valid inference
c. a fallacious argument masquerading as warranted
d. a blatant misinterpretation the legal terminology