PT12.S1.Q18 - lightning causes fire and damages

Comments

• 2 Likes

  thisissparta Alum Member

  November 2017 edited November 2017 1363 karma

  Pointless is not synonymous with inconvenience - you're reading that into the stimulus. For something to be pointless there must be no value added by the said entity. Now, in this case just because the installation of lighting rods is pointless does not mean that it would necessarily be an inconvenience. We don't know if those two occur simultaneously and always together. It's entirely possible to have one and not the other.

  Now, we know from Frieda's comment that there is some value added; if Erik is arguing that the addition of lightening rods is pointless, he has to establish that the disadvantages of installing these rods mitigates the advantages. Which he doesn't. AC (A) indicates exactly that.

  The point about inconvenience is never introduced in the question stem.
• 3 Likes

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  November 2017 8689 karma

  Excellent catch @thisissparta
  I actually have never looked at this question before. I got to (A) via POE. I believe this to be a super subtle question. Answer choice (A) is essentially saying: "Hey Erik, you know how you used that word 'pointless?' Well pointless can mean that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. And you haven't really done the job of showing us that the advantages of the recommendation are outweighed by the disadvantages."

  I don't quite know how to classify how the flaw here is being described by the answer choice. The answer choice is essentially saying (in my reading of it, I'm certainly open to guidance) "author has used a word in their conclusion, the meaning of which their evidence does not rise to." But the answer choice is saying that descriptor in a way in which it gives a pseudo definition of the word and then says that the author's evidence hasn't risen to that. I say "pseudo definition" here because if I were to disagree with someone about their use of the word "pointless" to describe a recommendation, I wouldn't say: "you've not proven that the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages." I would say something like: "you have not proven that the recommendation is meaningless/empty/devoid of meaning." Something other than the way it was described here.

  Odd, and not something I have come across before.

  David
• 2 Likes

  Paul Caint Alum Member ⭐

  November 2017 3521 karma

  Wow this is an interesting question.

  Erik said it was pointless, which we can define as something that has no effect. No effect could be that just nothing happens, or that any positive is offset by an equal amount of negative. I think that's what A is getting at.
• 1 Like

  thisissparta Alum Member

  November 2017 edited November 2017 1363 karma

  @BinghamtonDave said:
  Excellent catch @thisissparta
  I actually have never looked at this question before. I got to (A) via POE. I believe this to be a super subtle question. Answer choice (A) is essentially saying: "Hey Erik, you know how you used that word 'pointless?' Well pointless can mean that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. And you haven't really done the job of showing us that the advantages of the recommendation are outweighed by the disadvantages."

  I don't quite know how to classify how the flaw here is being described by the answer choice. The answer choice is essentially saying (in my reading of it, I'm certainly open to guidance) "author has used a word in their conclusion, the meaning of which their evidence does not rise to." But the answer choice is saying that descriptor in a way in which it gives a pseudo definition of the word and then says that the author's evidence hasn't risen to that. I say "pseudo definition" here because if I were to disagree with someone about their use of the word "pointless" to describe a recommendation, I wouldn't say: "you've not proven that the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages." I would say something like: "you have not proven that the recommendation is meaningless/empty/devoid of meaning." Something other than the way it was described here.

  Odd, and not something I have come across before.

  David

  I believe the flaw here is somewhat of a red herring. Erik doesn't address the issue at point; instead he introduces irrelevant material (faulty wiring and overloaded circuits) to the proceeding line of discussion (lightning rods and prevention of major damage to electronic equipment). The conclusion of course directly addresses Frieda's point. But the premise is a clear diversion.
• catgonzalez1974 Member

  November 2017 193 karma

  Yes, I see what you were saying of over assuming. I do that a lot.