GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 08 Dec 2019, 14:20

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Posts: 16
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2012, 08:34
Hi,
following is the explanation
(A) does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda's recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage (appear correct to me)
(B) does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightning (Eric is not trying to lessen the risk of lightening)
(C) appeals to Frieda's emotions rather than to her reason (out of scope)
(D) introduces an irrelevant comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring (Eric is not comparing btw OC and FW)
(E) confuses the notion of preventing damage with that of causing inconvenience (Eric has not discussed about causing inconvenience)
Manager
Status: Married
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2012, 20:38
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's counter-argument just goes tangential to what Frieda suggested. She's talking about the damages due to Lightning fires....he goes on about electrical fires...

Okay they may cause more damage....but still preventing lightning fires would be effectively done by Frieda's suggested method...

"Where do emotions come into picture?"

The correct answer is A and should be A....

Mods:

please review and if possible, change the OA to A.
Intern
Joined: 25 Aug 2010
Posts: 32
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2012, 05:48
is that Erik's response starts with "your recommendation is pointless"? for my viewpoint, pointless may not be so polite and may imply some negative "emotion".

personally, I support A, which is my 1st impression.
Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Posts: 3
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 11:48
Frieda say : lightening causes damage , so lightning rods should be implemented.
Erik : faulty wiring and overloaded circuits causes more damage , so ightning rods should not be implemented.

Erik's reasoning is faulty , since it does not point out any disadvantage of implementing the lightening rods, he just says that some other thing cause more damage.
In order to reject any statement, you need to show some disadvantage of that statement.
Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2013
Posts: 8
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2013, 02:50
I was confused between A and B..Dont understand why C is correct
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 284
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2013, 06:35
1
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:
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.

Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 72
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2013, 07:47
rbansal6 wrote:
I was confused between A and B..Dont understand why C is correct

A is correct. C was wrongly listed on the question of the day today
Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 23
Schools: HEC Montreal '20
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2014, 08:02
i went for b, can some can why it is not right ????
Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 23
Schools: HEC Montreal '20
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2014, 08:02
i went for b, can some can why it is not right ????
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 169
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2019, 20:39

Confused between A and B??

Why is B wrong. Clearly, Erik is not considering a way to prevent risk associated with lightning.

What is the meaning of option C "appeals to Frieda???s emotions rather than to her reason".
Re: Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic   [#permalink] 29 Mar 2019, 20:39

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by