Critical Reasoning

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

Which of the Options is the correct answer and why? Can some experts explain?

OA A