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