Which fallacy is being committed in the following?

"I read with great interest your presentation on how the human body actually requires a certain amount of sunlight despite the trend to constantly wear sunscreen. I am going to disagree with you unless you can tell me how you were able to make that presentation despite the fact that there were not supposed to be any more presentations after 6:00!"

A. Circular Reasoning.
B. Red Herring.
C. Appeal to Force.
D. Equivocation.

your question is incomplete

explanation:

the atm that sounds like it should be the answer

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals