Suppose a lawyer makes the following argument. The plaintiff, who was injured on a loose stair while exiting a clothing store, should be awarded damages. This is because in an earlier case, the same court ruled that a plaintiff who was injured by a loose floorboard in a restaurant was entitled to damages because the restaurant had been negligent in maintaining its floor. Which of the following facts would most weaken the argument?

Group of answer choices

The establishment in the earlier case was a restaurant, whereas the establishment in the present case is a clothing store.

The plaintiff in the present case had unknowingly kicked the stair loose in anger after a dispute with a salesperson before exiting the store.

The establishment in the earlier case had just passed a safety inspection the previous week, whereas the establishment in the present case did not do safety inspections at all.

The plaintiff in the present case suffered a more severe injury than the plaintiff in the earlier case.

The stair and the floorboard were both made of wood.