It is a justification for relative maximum, but it is not calculus-based, and so that's why we can rule this one out. The second derivative has a relative minimum at x equals negative four. Well, it does indeed seem to be true. There's a relative minimum there, but that's not a justification for why this is, why H of negative four, or why we have a relative maximum at x equals negative four. For example, this, you could have a relative minimum in your second derivative, but your second derivative could still be positive there. So what if the second derivative was like that? That would still be a relative minimum, but if it was positive at that point, then you would be concave upwards, which would mean that at x equals negative four, your original function wouldn't have a maximum point.