Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment. Since

Hi,
Answer is A
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)

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.

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.

nightblade354,

Would (D) be a contender, or right answer, if the answer choice would end with ".... irrelevant comparison between xyz and LIGHTNING strikes"?
I prephrased exactly an answer like this so I made the reckless mistake of just assuming (D) after I fell in love with the further part of the answer choice.

You are correct. The LSAT writers wanted you to think this (and I was as well as I read it), so you have to be careful not to misread an answer choice.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.