A

Because other options do not make sense
_________________

Conclusion: should not climb Everest.
Why?
1. Too dangerous
2. Spiritual discovery but actually NOT

B is clear winner here.

A. Why “primarily”? Why not for any other reasons else?
C. Legislation does not play any role in our argument.
D. We do not care how spiritual experience is formed.
E. Close but in our argument the conclusion is about STOP doing such activity not just EXAMINE.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi even though B strongly justifies, Can anyone explain why A is incorrect?

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(B) Principle

The correct Principle should take into account as much of the stimulus as possible without going outside the scope.
This very cautious stimulus attempts to dissuade climbers from taking on Everest because it can put these climbers in grave danger. And it also turns out that a significant reward from such a climb—“spiritual discovery”—isn’t even likely to pan out. Climbers will discover something at the summit, the author says, but that something will be exhaustion and fear. So we need to broaden this to a general law-like rule: one should forgo dangerous recreational activities if the chances of significant spiritual reward are slim. This general rule is restated by (B).

(A) The author doesn’t say that climbers attempt Everest “primarily” for spiritual reasons. Moreover, he recommends avoidance because the spiritual reward probably won’t happen.

(C) goes way too far, venturing into the territory of what should or should not he legally prohibited. The author doesn’t discuss what ought to be illegal.

(D) We can’t use this principle to support the stimulus because the author gives no indication that profound spiritual experiences can be achieved. All the author provides in the stimulus is one instance (mountain climbing) in which such experiences probably won’t be achieved.

(E) gets too broad by discussing “other athletes” and the reasons they have for participating in their various sports. But the element of danger that’s so central to the stimulus is nowhere to be found here.

(A) Projects undertaken primarily for spiritual reasons ought to be abandoned if the risks are great. -- The argument does not say that. The tone of the argument suggests that "fear" and "exhaustion" are insufficient spiritual experiences to take that sort of risk. Option A is actually counter to that. Eliminate.

(B) Dangerous activities that are unlikely to result in significant spiritual benefits for those undertaking them should be avoided. -- This is correct. Since the spiritual benefits are "not significant", therefore, the principle in this option validly applies in support the argument.

(C) Activities that are extremely dangerous ought to be legally prohibited unless they are necessary to produce spiritual enlightenment. -- "legally prohibited", "necessary" to produce.. we don't have any such information from the argument. Eliminate. Out of scope.

(D) Profound spiritual experiences can be achieved without undergoing the serious danger involved in mountain climbing. -- Eliminate. The argument does not suggest any of it. Maybe profound spiritual experiences are not possible at all. Who knows?

(E) Mountain climbers and other athletes should carefully examine the underlying reasons they have for participating in their sports. -- Eliminate. Doesn't relate to the argument stem.