Self-study
Frieda: Support Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment. █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██████ ████ ████
█████ ████ ██████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ████████████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ █████████ █████
Stimulus Summary
Frieda's argument is straightforward: lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment, lightning rods can prevent major damage from lightning, so every building should have a lightning rod.
Erik calls this recommendation "pointless." His reasoning? Faulty wiring and overloaded circuits cause far more fires and damage than lightning does. In other words, Erik is saying that lightning is a relatively minor threat compared to other causes of fires and equipment damage.
Smaller Problems Can Still Be Worth Addressing
Frieda is recommending that every building have a lightning rod. To show this recommendation is "pointless," Erik would need to show that the costs of installing lightning rods outweigh the benefits. But Erik doesn't do anything like that. He just points out that other things cause more damage than lightning.
That's like saying, "Why bother wearing a seatbelt? Heart disease kills way more people than car accidents." Okay, sure, but wearing a seatbelt still helps. The fact that a bigger problem exists doesn't mean a smaller problem isn't worth addressing.
Erik never argues that lightning rods are expensive, difficult to install, or cause any kind of drawback. Without identifying some disadvantage to Frieda's recommendation, he hasn't given us any reason to think the recommendation isn't worth following. Lightning rods could still provide a net benefit even if lightning is a relatively minor cause of fires.
18.
Erik’s response fails to establish ████ ██████████ ██████████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████
a
does not show ████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██████████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████████████
This identifies the core problem with Erik's response. Frieda recommends lightning rods, and lightning rods presumably provide a benefit: preventing major damage from lightning. To show that this recommendation is "pointless," Erik would need to show that some disadvantage of installing lightning rods offsets that benefit. But he never identifies any disadvantage at all. Even a comparatively small benefit can be worth pursuing if there's no meaningful downside.
b
does not offer ███ ██████████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ █████████
Erik doesn't need to offer an additional way to reduce lightning risk in order to show Frieda's recommendation is bad. If Erik had successfully shown that lightning rods aren't worth installing (say, by demonstrating that they're prohibitively expensive relative to the small amount of damage they prevent), his argument would work fine without proposing an alternative. You don't have to offer a better solution to show that a particular solution isn't worth it.
c
appeals to Frieda’s ████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██████
Erik doesn't appeal to Frieda's emotions. He makes a factual claim about what causes more fires and damage. You might disagree with his reasoning, but it's a reasoning-based response, not an emotional one.
d
introduces an irrelevant ██████████ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████
Erik doesn't compare overloaded circuits to faulty wiring. He groups them together and compares them collectively to lightning.
e
confuses the notion ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████████
Neither speaker discusses inconvenience. Erik's argument is about relative threat levels, not about whether lightning rods cause inconvenience. There's no confusion between preventing damage and causing inconvenience anywhere in the dialogue.