Jacaranda Strikes again (or I'm just wrong)

[Chazef]

Hey I'm reluctantly doing the study-on guide for chem 3/4 by *shudders* jacaranda and this question really annoys me. I don't think any of these answers are good enough to explain why the two methods are referred to as 'absorption' spectroscopy as none of the answers really mention something being 'absorbed'. I'm thinking it can't be option 3 because IR-spectroscopy doesn't use visible light and it can't be option 2 because IR doesn't involve electron energy states. That leaves 1 and 4, both of which are true as far as I know. Because option 4 actually mentions radiation, which is something that can be absorbed, I chose that but it turns out the 'correct' answer is option 1. Was option 4 trying to refer to the substance being tested giving out radiation (rather than just radiation from a lamp)? Because from what I see, there's no good reason to favour option 1 over option 4. Could someone please enlighten me I feel like I'm overlooking something important. This feels like one of those times when somebody says 'they call it X for a reason' when the word itself gives no clues as to its meaning (in this case X is 'absorption')