By praising the theory for recognizing that the script’s symbols could represent entire words

By arguing that the theory is overly influenced by the work of earlier scholars

By approving of the theory’s emphasis on how the script changed over time

By cautioning that the theory overlooks certain important aspects of how the script functioned

English

PASSAGE:
Text 1
Because literacy in Nahuatl script, the writing system of the Aztec Empire, was lost after Spain invaded central Mexico in the 1500s, it is unclear exactly how meaning was encoded in the script’s symbols. Although many scholars had assumed that the symbols signified entire words, linguist Alfonso Lacadena theorized in 2008 that they signified units of language smaller than words: individual syllables.
 
Text 2
The growing consensus among scholars of Nahuatl script is that many of its symbols could signify either words or syllables, depending on syntax and content at any given site within a text. For example, the symbol signifying the word <em>huipil</em> (blouse) in some contexts could signify the syllable “pil” in others, as in the place name “Chipiltepec.” Thus, for the Aztecs, reading required a determination of how such symbols functioned each time they appeared in a text.

QUESTION: Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize Lacadena’s theory, as described in Text 1?