Please help answer this question I am trying to raise my grade in social studies

For each of the following, mark whether it is a possible confounder (a factor that mixes up the results, making it look like candy is to blame when it's a causal (or causation) link which supports the argument that candy causes criminal behavior (ie, explains how candy leads to criminality ), or neither (an irrelevant factor, something that may cause people to become criminals but has nothing to do with eating candy). choose your answers based only< on the information given. additives in candy- additives found in candy may adversely affect brain development of young children in ways that could contribute towards adult aggression. impulsive personality-- kids who are highly impulsive and have trouble delaying gratification are more likely to eat candy every day as children and more likely to disobey laws as adults. violent abuse-- children who suffer violent abuse are more likely to become violent adults and commit violent crimes. gender- boys are overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent crimes

Me with this psychology homework, i’m struggling with it.

Chris, a master at office gossip and innuendo, says, "we know we have a corporate spy someplace in the organization, probably on the management team itself. there is no evidence that it is audrey. in fact, she's too clean, if you know what i mean. somebody should fire audrey; she's got to be the spy." by making this argument chris is actually engaging in (a) an appeal to emotion fallacy (b) a straw man fallacy (c) an appeal to ignorance fallacy (d) circular reasoning (e) an appeal to the mob fallacy