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

 It is currently 14 Dec 2019, 23:02

### 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

VP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1271
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 23 Apr 2013, 05:50
1
9
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (01:41) correct 52% (01:43) wrong based on 500 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________

Originally posted by sondenso on 24 May 2009, 06:43.
Last edited by doe007 on 23 Apr 2013, 05:50, edited 1 time in total.
Correction of OA
Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 169

### Show Tags

24 May 2009, 08:21
1
Clearly A

Erik just shows an alternate reason which can causes more damage than lightning. However, he does not mention about the recommendation of Frieda about lightning rods

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
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: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 109

### Show Tags

24 May 2009, 07:48
A it is . though faulty wiring and overload ckt cause damage still lighting rods have a role .
Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 94

### Show Tags

25 May 2009, 08:35
Minheequang wrote:
Clearly A

Erik just shows an alternate reason which can causes more damage than lightning. However, he does not mention about the recommendation of Frieda about lightning rods

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

I agree with Minheequang reasoning. Erik has not provided any reason y Frieda's recommendation is not useful. he has not even evaluated Frieda's reasoning .... just refuted it.
VP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1271
Schools: CBS, Kellogg

### Show Tags

25 May 2009, 20:25
mbaMission wrote:
Minheequang wrote:
Clearly A

Erik just shows an alternate reason which can causes more damage than lightning. However, he does not mention about the recommendation of Frieda about lightning rods

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

I agree with Minheequang reasoning. Erik has not provided any reason y Frieda's recommendation is not useful. he has not even evaluated Frieda's reasoning .... just refuted it.

Guys, I am still confusing! Can you help rephrase the question? I think the question makes me confused!

Thanks!
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 499

### Show Tags

25 May 2009, 23:32
Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment. [Recommendation]Since lightning rods can prevent any major damage, every building should have one.[/Recommendation]

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. Faulty wiring and overloaded circuits are out of context w.r.t Frieda's statement

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 -> Erik's response fails since it does not nullify the Frieda's recommendation any which way, thus correct

(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-> irrelevant
(D) introduces an irrelevant comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring->incorrect, the comparison is between the fire and damage caused by Lightning and faulty wiring and overloaded circuits
(E) confuses the notion of preventing damage with that of causing inconvenience->irrelevant
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 640
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2010, 08:35
I am confused b/w A and D but C is irrelevent choice. There is no mention of emotions in the argument.
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2010
Posts: 13

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2010, 09:55
A is answer. Erik gives no actual reason why having lightning rods could be bad.

OA ~ is out of scope, no mention of feelings
Senior Manager
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 280
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2010, 11:29
cr-lightning-43078.html
it's A here though
_________________
He that is in me > he that is in the world. - source 1 John 4:4
Manager
Joined: 04 Dec 2009
Posts: 52
Location: INDIA

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2010, 21:14
OA is A

To counter any suggestion or argue you have to show any advantage or disadvantage , erik argue fail to do this.
Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 147

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2010, 01:01
Can someone explain why B is wrong!!!
_________________
Success is my Destiny
Manager
Status: On my way !!!
Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Posts: 113
Location: France
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
GPA: 3.1
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Energy and Utilities)

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2011, 05:36
Well I think both A and B are correct, but going with the GMAT tradition of choosing the best answer I would go with (A)

Can someone explain how (C) is the OA.

--------------------------------
http://pyarapopat.wordpress.com
Intern
Joined: 02 Nov 2010
Posts: 17

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2011, 09:05
I went with A also. Curious why OA is C?

B. is off because Erik seems to be down playing the risk of lightning
Intern
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 31

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2011, 10:03
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 15

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2011, 20:09
I would have chosen A.

But also need to understand closely why D is not good enough.
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 137
Location: India
WE 1: 3.75 IT
WE 2: 1.0 IT

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2011, 04:28
Clearly A.. How OA is C?? Anyone please clarify??
Intern
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 2
Schools: Haas

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2011, 06:30
The question specifically asks "Erik’s response fails to establish that Frieda’s recommendation should not be acted on because his response". Basically you need to point out deficiencies in a given recommendation before discounting it. Additional fire causes that Erik is referring to, also need attention but are independent of 'lightening'.

So while Erik is providing additional things to look after, he fails to mention what is wrong with Frieda's recommendation.

Hence A

[quote="pyarapopat"]Well I think both A and B are correct, but going with the GMAT tradition of choosing the best answer I would go with (A)

Can someone explain how (C) is the OA.
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 137
Location: India
WE 1: 3.75 IT
WE 2: 1.0 IT

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2011, 20:35
simmy818: Could you please explain how OA is C.
I'm getting it as A. So Confused!!
Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 1

### Show Tags

03 May 2011, 07:37
IT'S C

because Erik use examples which is out of scope to refute Frieda!!
he says overloaded circuits and faulty wiring cause far more fires~ it's really not the point to compare that!
Re: Electronic equipment   [#permalink] 03 May 2011, 07:37

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 30 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by