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

Start practicing free

Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment.

Frieda's Conclusion

Every building should have a lightning rod.

Frieda's Evidence

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

Erik's Move

Erik says Frieda's recommendation is pointless because faulty wiring and overloaded circuits cause more fires and equipment damage than lightning does.

Evaluate

Frieda's recommendation is about preventing the lightning damage that does occur. Erik's response only shows that other things cause more fires than lightning does — that does not show lightning rods are not worth installing. Even if lightning is a smaller threat, it is still a real threat that lightning rods cheaply and effectively address.

Goal

Find the answer that says Erik never showed the costs (or any disadvantages) of Frieda's recommendation outweigh its benefits.

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 the precise gap in Erik's response. Frieda recommended lightning rods because they prevent damage from lightning — an actual benefit. Erik's reply just points to a different (larger) source of fires; he never offers a downside to lightning rods that would outweigh that benefit. To show Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on, Erik would need to show that the benefits are offset by some disadvantage. He never does.

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

    56% 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. Failing to provide an alternative is not the flaw — failing to give a real reason against her recommendation is.

    18% picked this

  3. appeals to Frieda’s emotions rather

    Inappropriate Appeals

    Erik does not appeal to emotion. He gives a factual claim (wiring and overloaded circuits cause more fires than lightning) and draws a conclusion from it. That is a reasoning move, not an emotional one. The flaw lies elsewhere.

    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. There is no internal comparison between the two things, so this is not the flaw. Even if there were, that comparison is not what makes Erik's response weak; the weakness is that his point does not undermine the case for lightning rods.

    23% 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). The flaw is not a confusion of concepts — it is that Erik never shows lightning rods come with any cost that offsets their benefit.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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