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

B- coz freda speaks abt lightning and he fails to tell abt that

OA??

A is the only choice that seems right.
Rest all are fluff.

I think A is the answer. Can you please confirm?

got to A and B . Finally IMO A

GmatKiss 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

IMO A

Frieda:: Suggests a way to prevent lightning fires
Erik: Concludes recommendation is pointless... and gives a reason of other causes of fires

Q/s stem -->Erik's response fails to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on because his response --> what is the flaw in Eric's conclusion ..



(A) does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda's recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage
Absolutely correct.. Eric is not able to point out what i the disadvantage with the method suggested by Frieda

(B) does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightning
..Even if eric gives other additional choices.. it has to prove why they are better...and why Frieda's method is pointless

A for me what is the OA