sondenso wrote:
Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment. Since lightning rods can prevent any major damage, every building should have one.
Erik: Your recommendation is pointless. It is true that lightning occasionally causes fires, but faulty wiring and overloaded circuits cause far more fires and damage to equipment than lightning does.
Erik’s response fails to establish that Frieda’s recommendation should not be acted on because his response
(A) does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda’s recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage
(B) does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightning
(C) appeals to Frieda’s emotions rather than to her reason
(D) introduces an irrelevant comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring
(E) confuses the notion of preventing damage with that of causing inconvenience
Erik accepted the fact that lightning causes fires and he mentioned about other factors that cause fires and damages. But, Erik turned down the recommendation of Frieda and he did not show any reason for rejecting the recommendation.
Logically, reason to reject any recommendation could be either of the following:
1. Disadvantages would prevail over the advantages from the recommended action
2. A better alternative solution can be adopted.
However, Erik's statement does not have any such reasoning.
A)
Correct. Erik didn't show any disadvantage that may offset the advantages brought in by Frieda’s recommendation.
B) Incorrect. The word used here is "additional" and not "alternate". If the concern is about additional recommendation, then Erik must have accepted Frieda’s recommendation. But the fact is that Erik rejected Frieda’s recommendation. So, it is pointless to think of "additional" when Erik didn't accept the original recommendation.
C) Out of scope. There is no mention or implication of emotion in Frieda’s statement; rather, Frieda’s recommendation seems to be matter-of-fact. So, Erik didn't “appeal to emotion” at all.
D) Incorrect. Erik said that overloaded circuits and faulty wiring cause more fire damage than lightning. But, he never did any comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring. Where there is no such comparison, obviously there is no "irrelevant comparison".
E) Incorrect. Erik didn’t mention anything about inconvenience. He was concerned about preventing damage only. There is no appearance of Erik's confusion between notion of preventing and notion of causing inconvenience.
Correct Answer is A.