Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment. Since...
Frieda makes a recommendation that every building should have a lightning rod to prevent major damage caused by lightning. Erik counters her recommendation by stating that faulty wiring and overloaded circuits cause more fires and damage to equipment than lightning does.
To identify why Erik's response fails to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on, we need to analyze the options:
(A) The answer choice states that Erik's response does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda's recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage. This means that Erik does not provide any evidence or reasoning to suggest that having lightning rods on buildings would be a disadvantage or would cancel out the benefits of preventing major damage. This is a valid criticism of Erik's response, as he fails to address the potential benefits of Frieda's recommendation.
(B) This answer choice states that Erik's response does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightning. While this may be true, the question is specifically asking why Erik's response fails to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on. The fact that Erik doesn't offer an alternative solution to lessen the risk of lightning is not necessarily a flaw in his response to Frieda's recommendation. Therefore, (B) is not the correct answer.
(C) This answer choice suggests that Erik's response appeals to Frieda's emotions rather than her reason. However, there is no evidence in the question stem to support this claim. Erik's response seems to be based on logical reasoning rather than emotional manipulation. Therefore, (C) is not the correct answer.
(D) This option states that Erik introduces an irrelevant comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring. Upon closer examination, we can see that Erik's comparison is indeed relevant because he is trying to establish that faulty wiring and overloaded circuits are more significant causes of fires and equipment damage compared to lightning. He is arguing that addressing these more common causes should take priority over Frieda's recommendation. Thus, (D) is not the correct answer.
(E) This answer choice claims that Erik confuses the notion of preventing damage with that of causing inconvenience. However, there is no evidence in the question stem to support this claim. Erik's response focuses on the comparison of different causes of fires and damage, rather than the inconvenience or prevention of damage. Therefore, (E) is not the correct answer.
By process of elimination, the correct answer is (A). Erik's response fails to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on because he does not show that the benefits of Frieda's recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage. He simply argues that other causes of fires and damage are more significant, but he does not address the potential benefits of preventing damage from lightning through the use of lightning rods.