Uhhhhh ok.
Guy walks in the house, a guest that is invited over to cook the lunch for today and brings some wine with him as a drink. Guy starts cooking and goes to go set food down on the table, Wife comes into the kitchen, guy falls and drops the lunch all over the floor. The wife gets mad and start yelling. The husband comes and tells the wife its okay, they work it out, and the guest cooks the food again and cleans up. They set up the table and food, sit down, and enjoy thwir afternoon eating and chatting about their day.
The argument that uses a non sequitur fallacy is C, "Regulations on motorists should be lifted because factories are a bigger source of pollution"
Explanation: Non sequitur fallacy is when the conclusion doesn't follow the premises. That said in different words, the premises is an irrelevant reason to support the conclusion.
So, as true as it is that factories are a bigger source of pollution, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fact that regulations on motorists should be lifted, does not necessarily mean that the reason to do that is that factories are a bigger source of pollution.
He is death the person who takes a soul for the ones who have had there time named The reaper
