BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Erik's response

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:40 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:690

Erik's response

by Dean Jones » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:11 am
Hi Friends,

I am having problems with the following question. Need help.

Frieda: Lightening causes fires and damages electronic equipment. Since lightening 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 lightening 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 disadvantages.
B. Does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightening.
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.

OA after some discussions.

Regards
Deano.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:26 am
IMO A
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:20 pm

by AbhishekVerma416 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:24 pm
Both A and D look good. I would go with D.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:30 pm
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:730

by coderversion1 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:50 pm
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.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:30 pm
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:730

by coderversion1 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:52 pm
OA Please. :)
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 9:09 am
Location: pune
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:3 members

by amit2k9 » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:00 am
Dean Jones wrote:Hi Friends,

I am having problems with the following question. Need help.

Frieda: Lightening causes fires and damages electronic equipment. Since lightening 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 lightening 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 disadvantages. -- Erik clearly misses the point on lightning mentioned by Frieda.Clear OA.
B. Does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightening. -- out of scope.
C. Appeals to Frieda's emotions rather than to her reason. -- Eric gives reason instead. POE.
D. Introduces an irrelevant comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring--no such comparison made. POE.
E. Confuses the notion of preventing damage with that of causing inconvenience.convenience hasn't been talked about in the argument. POE. -- in

OA after some discussions.

Regards
Deano.
For Understanding Sustainability,Green Businesses and Social Entrepreneurship visit -https://aamthoughts.blocked/
(Featured Best Green Site Worldwide-https://bloggers.com/green/popular/page2)
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:03 am
Thanked: 19 times

by krishnasty » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:18 am
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]
---------------------------------------
Appreciation in thanks please!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:40 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:690

by Dean Jones » Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:07 am
OA is A
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1