Erik's response

IMO A

Both A and D look good. I would go with D.

Frieda: Main concern is fire caused by lightning and hence a solution by using lightning rods is suggested.
Erik: Undermines Frieda's concern by telling more prevalent causes of fire, suggesting fires by lightning is lesser.

Question Type: Flaw

Prephrase(or flaw): I agree that more fires are caused by faulty wiring and overload circuits but fires are cause by lightning too, what Erik says does not reject Erika's point of fires caused by lighting. If we have a bigger problem it doesn't mean smaller problem does not exist.

Let's see each answer choice now:

A: Yes, true it does not show the benefits will be offset by its disadvantages which could have completely established that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on. A contender choice, let's keep it aside and look for other contenders.

B. True, he does not offer additional way of lessening risks, but even if he had offered it would not have established that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on. So irrelevant. Reject.

C. Bu****** :p

D. Hmmm.. Well it does sound confusing, but let's see our flaw, if Erik had to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on, he should have supported why lightning does not pose a risk, or why lightning rod is ineffective. Instead he suggests a comparison (even if appropriate) would not have eliminated the chances of fire by lightning. Frieda's point would still be valid, hence this choice is irrelevant. Compare with (A) and Reject.

E. Is this happening anywhere in the question?? No, Irrelevant, Reject.

Thus, [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] is most suitable answer. IMO.

OA Please.

IMO A

Frieda is more interested in the damage caused by lightening and not fires or faulty circuits. fires and damaged electronic items may result due to multiple reasons, but here we are looking at the cause and not the affect. right?

now Erik's counter statements caters to is the affect and not the cause. He talks bout a affect looking at a completely different track.

A. Does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda's recommendation would be offset by any disadvantages.
--> correct through Elimination.

B. Does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightening.
--> incorrect

C. Appeals to Frieda's emotions rather than to her reason.
--> his ans depicts more of a reason, that too pointless

D. Introduces an irrelevant comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring
--> we are talking bout the cause ( lightening and not the circuits
E. Confuses the notion of preventing damage with that of causing inconvenience.
-->huh?? incorrect..

OA after some discussions.

Regards
Deano.[/quote]

OA is A