In slander per se categories, which of the following is not included?

Slander per se refers to certain types of statements that are considered so inherently damaging that harm to the victim's reputation is presumed, eliminating the need for the plaintiff to prove actual damages. The categories traditionally recognized in slander per se include statements that:

1. Impute a loathsome disease to another (e.g., telling someone they have a contagious disease).
2. Affect a person's chastity (e.g., calling a woman unchaste).
3. Implicate someone in a crime involving moral turpitude (e.g., fraud, theft, or other serious criminal behavior).

The option that is not recognized as a category of slander per se is "public misunderstanding." This phrase does not correspond to a specific statement or type of defamatory claim that would automatically presume harm to the person's reputation. Instead, it suggests a broader concept that may need additional context or detail to qualify as defamatory, which does not fit within the established categories of slander per se. Thus, the inclusion of this option distinguishes it from the other three, which are clear examples of slanderous statements that automatically carry reputational damage.