Explanation
A. (Correct Response) Kendra's position implies that because accessing wireless internet requires stopping and potentially loitering—which can be illegal—this action could be seen as illegal under current laws. This is a point of disagreement with Gerald, who believes that such access is not illegal and equates it to a harmless act.
B. Kendra's concern is not about trespassing, but about the actions of stopping and using the service potentially being considered as loitering or harassment.
C. The argument doesn't explicitly state that accessing someone's wireless internet should be made illegal; Kendra's concern is with the implications of the action under current law.
D. The disagreement is not centered on the time required to access the internet, but rather on the legality of the action itself.
E. Kendra's argument suggests that the act is intentional and potentially illegal, not something done without intending to do so.
The argument's flaw that Kendra is highlighting is option A because it involves actions (like loitering or harassment) that are illegal, contrasting with Gerald's view that casually using such a service is not a legal issue.