SmarpanGamt wrote:The climbing season of 2006 was the deadliest on record for those attempting to conquer Mount Everest, the world's tallest mountain, as more people perished attempting to reach the summit in 2006 than in any other year. Almost all of these deaths occurred in the unforgiving "death-zone" above 26,000 feet. Oddly, though, the 2006 season enjoyed exceptionally ideal climbing weather compared to more typical years.

Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent contradiction in the above passage?

A. The warmer the weather, the more likely it is that crevasses (deep holes) will open up unexpectedly in the ice.
Possible, but ambigous: we know the weather was ideal, not necessarily warmer - A assumes that warmer weather is more ideal, which is a step away from the premises of the question. Also, we don't know that the deep hols opened in the death zone or below it.

B.In 2006, fewer climbing teams than usual were forced to turn back at some point during the ascent prior to reaching the "death-zone."
This is probably the right answer. In a regular year, the number of deaths is limited because people don't even manage to reach the death zone. In 2006, more people reached the zone, so the zone's higher mortality rate (the percent of people who enter it and die) applies to more people, making for a larger number of deaths.

C. In recent years, more amateurs have attempted to climb the world's great peaks, including Everest.
Irrelevant, does not relate to 2006.

D.In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years.
merely restates the information in the question - doesn't add anything new.
E. Although the 2006 season overall enjoyed ideal weather conditions, the one major storm was one of the worst on record
possible, but requires a few more steps: for E to be the answer, we have to assume that the storm was the cause of death or at least that more deaths happened at the time of the storm. It is possible that the storm shut down on climbing altogether. In short, E is a possible explanation, but a weaker one that B, which directly addresses the premises of the question without "inventing" a storm.
Please explain your pick.

rkanthilal wrote:I like Geva's reasoning on this one...

This one was a little tricky for me because of outside information. A few years ago I saw documentary about the 2006 climbing season on Everest. I know for a fact that it was the storm that trapped and killed a number of the climbers in the "death zone". However, in the context of this passage, choice E just isn't enough.

gtr02 wrote:

rkanthilal wrote:I like Geva's reasoning on this one...

This one was a little tricky for me because of outside information. A few years ago I saw documentary about the 2006 climbing season on Everest. I know for a fact that it was the storm that trapped and killed a number of the climbers in the "death zone". However, in the context of this passage, choice E just isn't enough.

Really, b/c I just read the book Into Thin Air and I always thought the 1996 tragedy was the worse freak accident that Everest ever had, took 8 eight lives due to inclement weather...

Picked (E) here b/c altho 2006 had an ideal climbing weather, that one bad storm could have explained the contradiction? Lets say most of the deaths occurred during the major storm?