With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The manslaughter [instruction] says legal duty. That’s one of the elements the Commonwealth has to prove. We’re asking that that duty be defined.” As noted above, the jury acquitted Barrett of involuntary manslaughter. Accordingly, because Barrett failed to put this argument before the trial court in relation to the instructions pertaining to felony child neglect, we do not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18; see also West Alexandria Prop. v. First Va. Mort., 221 Va. 134, 138, 267 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1980) (“On appeal, though taking the same general position as in the trial court, an appellant may not rely on reasons which could have been but were not raised for the benefit of the lower court.”); Floyd v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 575, 584, 249 S.E.2d 171, 176 (1978) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons stated above, we affirm the

A: holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court
B: holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal
C: holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue
D: holding that even when the issue is constitutional in nature an argument is not preserved on appeal unless the appellant raised and made the argument at trial and obtained a ruling on it nor will a particular theory be addressed on appeal if it was not presented below
C.