Limited options attack

A limited options attack (which could be construed as a fallacy, but is malicious in nature) is where another person, debater or arguer, purposefully presents a limited set of options, whether they knowingly withdraw other alternatives, prevent or impede active disclosure of alternatives, or generally attempts to otherwise stifle other choices.

In practice
Say Frank tells Charlie: 'either we accept fracking, or oil production, or gas production, or we won't have any jobs', this is a limited options attack. Frank, knowing full well funding can be allocated to many other resources (including renewable energy or even other production facilities), has withheld the knowledge of the other options.

It rests on Charlie to expose or open up the debate, which in all predictableness, Frank will likely close down (by suggesting renewables are 'unrealistic' or metal production a 'waste of time', etc). At the stage Frank has or should have knowledge on alternatives, Frank is no longer committing a basic fallacy (an accidental error), but is committing a type of psychological attack by biasing the audience to the limited selections (this also makes use of the lesser evils fallacy).

As such, this then becomes the 'limited options attack' - skewering the list of options to your own ones on purpose. This also exploits the psychological rule of the first and last, the ignorance gambit, and the laziness gambit.

Countering
Charlie's main line of countering is by expanding the list of available options, being careful to avoid the psychological pit fall of too many options, and should identify a single, non-conformist idea, preferably the strongest of the set, and expound the idea's counter.

If Frank attempts to close down via stereotyping attacks, Charlie must counter by observing Frank's limited options and therefore limited knowledge. Both Frank and Charlie will 'know' this isn't true (however it's unproven to Charlie and thus a gambit), but for Frank to counteract this statement, he has to prove he has knowledge, which then leaves him open to an exposure attack, by asking if he already knew other alternatives, why didn't he bring them up? This will make a reveal to the audience, and undermine Frank's flawed position.

If Frank truly is ignorant, which people are rarely inclined to admit due to the ego trap, if he admits to it, then the point of Frank's limited knowledge is valid, which scores reputation points for Charlie with the audience. If he doesn't admit to it, but is clearly ignorant, it will make a reveal to the audience progressively as the debate carries on, hopefully resulting in an audience epiphany.