Q18 - Frieda: Lightning causes fires

[sunhwa2881]

Can you explain Q18? Is the answer A because Erik responds to Frieda's argument by saying that her recommendation is pointless but he does not explain why it is pointless?

[bbirdwell]

Pretty much. Here's an example:

Person A: Flying debris causes eye injuries, so workers should wear safety goggles.

Person B: That's stupid. Inattentiveness causes way more injuries than flying debris.

What's wrong here? Person B has suggested another problem, but has done nothing to prove why Person A's recommendation is in fact "stupid." The fact that something else causes more injuries is not a good reason to forego preventing the injuries caused by flying debris.

[ramneet.sierra]

Pretty much. Here's an example:

Person A: Flying debris causes eye injuries, so workers should wear safety goggles.

Person B: That's stupid. Inattentiveness causes way more injuries than flying debris.

What's wrong here? Person B has suggested another problem, but has done nothing to prove why Person A's recommendation is in fact "stupid." The fact that something else causes more injuries is not a good reason to forego preventing the injuries caused by flying debris.

I was confused with this question as well. Before reaching the answers to this q. I figured that the correct answer would have something along the line of "Erik did not really talk about the relevance to lightening" but doesn't answer choice D: which states that he introduces an irrelevant comparison of another topic (faulty wire and circuit) also introduce a flaw in the argument. I narrowed down my answers down to A and D. Can you further explain why A is correct of D. Thank you.

[timmydoeslsat]

To me, I think the major driving factor in being able to answer this question correctly is to understand what the question stem is saying.

"Erik's response fails to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on because his response"

Frieda's argument concludes with her saying that every building should have lightning rods. This is because they prevent major damage and lightning causes damage.

Erik's response is that Frieda's recommendation is pointless. That is a rather strong choice of words. I cannot wait to see his evidence. For him to say that her recommendation is pointless, he is going to have his work cut out for him!

His reasoning is that faulty wiring and overloaded circuits cause far more damage than lightning does.

Like bbirdwell stated, just because phenomenon B causes more damage than phenomenon A does not allow us to say that we should not prevent A from happening.

I would not say that the idea of overloaded circuits and faulty wiring is irrelevant. It is relevant in the sense that both cause fire and damage to electronic equipment.

The problem with what Erik has done is that he wants criticize the recommendation without stating why every building SHOULD NOT have a lightning rod.

Even if Erik responded with a totally irrelevant comparison such as clowns crossing the streets cause highway accidents, the flaw is STILL the fact that he did not state why the recommendation is pointless.

[agneskozera]

I'm not sure if I am correct but the reason why I eliminated "D" is because Erik never actually compares overloaded circuits and faulty wiring. He only states that both are more responsible for fires than lightning.

My confusion is with answer "B", which states that Erik "does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightning." Why is this answer wrong? I chose it because I thought that Erik introduces a new problem but does nothing to solve the first problem in a better way and thus fails to establish why Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on

[timmydoeslsat]

I'm not sure if I am correct but the reason why I eliminated "D" is because Erik never actually compares overloaded circuits and faulty wiring. He only states that both are more responsible for fires than lightning.

The most important thing with this question is its question stem. It is unusual in the fact that it is basically asking us why did Erik's argument fail?

Well we know that his conclusion is that Frieda's recommendation is pointless. However, his support is simply that another thing is worse. There is no evidence showing how her recommendation is pointless.

So with (D), I wouldn't call it an irrelevant comparison. It has some relevance due to the fact that it too causes fires and damages electronic equipment.

My confusion is with answer "B", which states that Erik "does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightning." Why is this answer wrong? I chose it because I thought that Erik introduces a new problem but does nothing to solve the first problem in a better way and thus fails to establish why Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on

With (B), it is not Erik's job to offer an additional way. His conclusion was that the recommendation is pointless. All he is required to do to make that argument valid is show how it is pointless. A was something that was required for Erik to do in proving his conclusion true. For something to be pointless, there must not be any benefit in it.

[bbirdwell]

Regarding (B)

Why is this answer wrong? I chose it because I thought that Erik introduces a new problem but does nothing to solve the first problem in a better way and thus fails to establish why Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on

timmdoeslsat is pointing toward the answer here: Erik does not have to know a better way in order to prove that Freida's way should not be followed.

(B) puts forth a way of seeing about the problem that is probably recognizable from our everyday social experience. [I say "X will fix the problem!" My friend says "No it won't!" I say "Fine! YOU think of something better!"] Here, my friend is not necessarily wrong because he has failed to come up with a better solution -- it's possible that he is correct in saying that X won't work, even though he has not thought of something better than X.

Regarding (C)
Freida's emotions are not appealed to.

Regarding (D)

I'm not sure if I am correct but the reason why I eliminated "D" is because Erik never actually compares overloaded circuits and faulty wiring. He only states that both are more responsible for fires than lightning.

Good reading! There is no comparison BETWEEN CIRCUITS AND WIRING! There is a comparison between "circuits and wiring" and "lightning."

Regarding (E)
This does not occur; inconvenience is never mentioned.

[wguwguwgu]

Just like agneskozera, I was also confused and not sure if A or B. Now I realized that the question stem" Erik fails to establish... because he...." is basically like a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION question.

Erik does/does not blabla (the right AC) ---> argument fails,

in other words (contrapositive),

if the argument is to succeed ---> what's described in the AC HAS TO be wrong, Erik has to do/not do blabla...

As Bbirdwell pointed out, negation of B is NOT NECESSARY for Erik to rebut Frieda's proposal, but that of A indeed is.

Admittedly, if I have to think that hard (as in long) for every LR question, I would need 2 hours for a section

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks for the tip, wguwguwgu!

Would (D) be correct if it said something like, "introduces an irrelevant comparison BETWEEN overloaded circuits or faulty wiring AND lightning strikes?" It seems like this answer would basically be saying "what Erik said is irrelevant," which it really is.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for the tip, wguwguwgu!

Would (D) be correct if it said something like, "introduces an irrelevant comparison BETWEEN overloaded circuits or faulty wiring AND lightning strikes?" It seems like this answer would basically be saying "what Erik said is irrelevant," which it really is.

Absolutely! A comparison between *lightning strikes* and those other things is not at all relevant to whether or not Frieda's suggestion is a worthwhile one, so if (D) had focused on THAT comparison, it would be a reasonable answer.

However, it's worth pointing out that even that comparison would have been relevant for a different conclusion that Erik could have been making. For instance, if his conclusion has been not that Frieda's suggestion was "pointless", but rather that her suggestion was "not the most effective way to prevent fires and damage to electronic equipment" or "not guaranteed to substantially reduce fires and damage to electronic equipment", then even this adjusted comparison would be relevant.

Nice work!

[mwalton444]

I’m curious why (A) is correct. It says it does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda’s recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage. But is that the only way Erik could have made Frieda’s claim pointless.

Erik could have made her claims pointless in a number of ways besides just showing that her recommendations are offset by disadvantages.

For this reason, I thought this answer choice was unnecessary.

Is this wrong?

[bswise2]

I’m curious why (A) is correct. It says it does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda’s recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage. But is that the only way Erik could have made Frieda’s claim pointless.

Erik could have made her claims pointless in a number of ways besides just showing that her recommendations are offset by disadvantages.

For this reason, I thought this answer choice was unnecessary.

Is this wrong?

I second this...When I read A, I eliminated it because I figured that we are not told that benefits being offset by disadvantages is the criterion for something to be "action worthy." I figured that choosing A would require an unwarranted assumption...

[ohthatpatrick]

Well not to go too far down the rabbit hole of philosophy, but what DO you think is the common sense standard for something being action-worthy?

To me the easiest definition would be "it provides a net benefit", which is another way of saying advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Benefit = good = positive aspects

We're basically saying "we should do something if it would be good to do that thing."

What does it mean to say it would be "good" to do something? It would result, on the whole, in good, in benefit, in advantage.

=============

I don't think we need to assume a common sense axiom for "action-worthy" to get this right, as long as we just think of the question stem as asking,
"What could Frieda say at this point that would make it seem like we should still put a lightning rod on every building?"

We'd say stuff like, "Thanks, Erik. I'm sure there are lots of ways to start a fire, but if lightning rods are easy and inexpensive to install and WOULD prevent at least some fires, shouldn't we still put a rod on every building?"

It's kinda like if I said, "Hey, Joe. You should put on sunscreen so that you reduce the risk of developing cancer" and Joe said, "That's pointless. The most common causes of cancer are smoking cigarettes and genetic factors."

There is still a point to putting on sunscreen!

(A) is just the best response Frieda has from this list of answer choices.

"Erik, even though I agree that there are more common causes of building fires, there is still good reason to put lightning rods on every building if the benefits of doing so are greater than the disadvantages of doing so."