The misconception this question enforces is stronger than that. 1 and 3 attempt compare the the measurement of physical properties while number 4 is a behavioural observation that can only be measured through correlation. Numbers 1 and 3 can be proven to be fact through measurement while number can only be a hypothesis(that can only be proven with a causation or disproven with a observation that states otherwise). From the TFA the purpose of the question is asses the student's ability to discern opinion/interpretation from a scientific observation. While number is undoubtedly a scientific observation, asserting number 4 is true after observation is still an opinion/interpretation, making it a poor choice to assert that student has a clear understanding of the difference between opinion and fact.

Peter Guttman's paper wasn't debunked, it was a victim of bitrot. Many of Guttman's sources and references were changed or updated as Guttman wrote the paper over a period of 2 years. Often the changes were a direct result of what Guttman wrote, other times other significant events outdated what he said(like the death of HD-DVD, which fundamentaly changed many of Guttman's arguments since HD-DVD was supposed to only be supported by Microsoft, until Blu-Ray became the the format left). Lastly many of those articles which "claimed" to debunk his paper used differing versions of the paper to create contradictions that did not exist. Or even spewed out more rhetoric in one sentence than they claimed Guttman had in his entire document,ie http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/3784 (Seriously, his first argument against Guttman is the length of his paper, like that has anything to do with it's credibility? OMMFFFGGG ITS OVER 26,000!!!!).