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.

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.

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.

Erik doesn't compare overloaded circuits to faulty wiring. He groups them together and compares them collectively to lightning.

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.