Logical Reasoning

PT12 · S1 · Q18 Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment.

Frieda's Conclusion

Every building should have a lightning rod.

Frieda's Evidence (since)

Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment, and lightning rods can prevent any major damage from lightning.

Erik's Move

It's pointless to install lightning rods because faulty wiring and overloaded circuits cause more fires and equipment damage than lightning does.

Evaluate

Can't we work on all three? If lightning, faulty wiring, and overloaded circuits all lead to damage, let's try to protect ourselves against all three.

If a lightning rod is cheap / easy to install then isn't it still worthwhile for reducing our risk of damage?

You can't say, Doesn't every cut potentially save some money? Isn't that worthwhile? In order for an author to say, , they'd have to establish that we can choose either one to address and can't choose to address both.

Goal

Erik did not convince us that we shouldn't have lightning rods. He argued that other problems are even more important, but he never made it sound like by trying to install a lightning rod, we would undermine our efforts to address faulty wiring and overloaded circuits.

Frieda explained the upside of installing a lightning rod, and Erik never countered that with any downisde.

18.

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

  1. Correct

    does not show that the

    Why this is right

    This is another way of saying Erik never provided any reason against installing lightning rods. The fact that there are other things we could also address is not a reason against addressing the potential risk from lightning. To argue for / against a "should" claim, we want to compare upsides to downsides. Frieda presented an upside of installing lightning rods (they can prevent major damage), and Erik did not counter with any downside.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    59% picked this

  2. does not offer any additional

    Bad Objection

    Erik does not need to suggest another way to address lightning risk to rebut Frieda. The real problem is that what he did say (other risks are bigger) does not actually rebut her. You're allowed to shut down someone's potential solution to a problem without needing to provide your own solution. It's not a logical flaw if you can successfully argue that someone else's plan is a bad idea, even if you don't know what good idea to suggest. Failing to provide an alternative is not the flaw. Failing to give a real reason why we'd even need an alternative plan is the flaw. What's wrong with lightning rods?

    18% picked this

  3. appeals to Frieda’s emotions rather

    Inappropriate Appeals

    Nothing in Erik's evidence involves talking about Frieda's emotions.

    0% picked this

  4. introduces an irrelevant comparison between

    Bad Description

    Erik is not comparing overloaded circuits to faulty wiring against each other. He is grouping them together as causes that are bigger than lightning. It technically is irrelevant for Erik to bring up faulty wiring and overloaded circuits at all (unless installing a lightning rod would have some effect on these issues, which he never establishes it would). So the answer is still pretty appealing, but wiring and circuits aren't being compared to each other. Erik is bringing up an irrelevant comparison between lightning and wiring/circuits.

    20% picked this

  5. confuses the notion of preventing

    Bad Description

    Erik does not confuse damage with inconvenience. Both Frieda and Erik are talking about damage (fires, equipment damage). Neither is ever talking about inconvenience.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free