With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court observed that lewdness as used in the Illinois public nuisance act, which is quite similar to section 192-1 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, was in the disjunctive seriatim with the words 'prostitution and assignation,’ so that its meaning must be determined by looking to the words with which it is associated. The court concluded that the legislature must have intended 'lewdness’ to be interpreted as being synonymous with 'prostitution,’ and therefore held that the statute was not too vague. (Accord, Chicago v Geraci, 30 Ill App 3d 699; 332 NE2d 487 [1975].) In Geraci, the court adopted the same interpretation with respect to section 192-1 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. We agree with this interpretation.” See, also, State ex rel Faches v NDD, Inc, 228 NW2d 191 (Iowa, 1975) (<HOLDING>). 6 Appellant’s argument is based on the

A: holding the phrase open and gross lewdness unconstitutionally vague
B: holding that an undefined statutory term should be given its natural ordinary meaning
C: holding the term lewdness undefined in the iowa abatement statute to be vague
D: holding that term unreasonable noise was not vague
C.