Frank Larsen argues for stricter gun control. It appears that Frank wants to abolish access to guns altogether. But if law-abiding citizens can't own a gun, then they will have no means of defending themselves against criminals. Obviously Frank's argument is no good. A. Straw man. B. No fallacy. C. Red herring. D. False cause. E. Argument against the person, abusive.

A.

Explanation:

Straw Man is a type of informal fallacy in which a person takes the argument of the other and distort it exaggeratedly. Then, the person attacks this distorted argument making as if the other person was making this argument. This type of fallacy is like 'attacking a straw man.'

In the given case, the argument that Frank Larsen is making is an example of a straw man fallacy. Because the argument that Frank is making makes no sense and hence is of no good.

So, the correct answer is option A.

c- companies fail to take environmental protection into account. i think