Consider this argument: 'A candidate can be considered for the post only if she has three years of field experience. Nandini does not have three years of field experience. So Nandini cannot be considered for the post.' Which of the following reasons in the same way?

The original states a requirement that must be met, notes that it is not met, and rules the candidate out. The film argument states the same kind of requirement, notes that it is not met, and rules the film out. The second option reads the requirement as a guarantee, the third argues validly but the other way round, from the act back to the requirement, and the fourth mistakes a requirement for a guarantee.