The climbing season of 2006 was the deadliest on record

Question

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. 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.
 
All of the following, if true, help explain the apparent contradiction in the above passage EXCEPT

A. At the very end of the 2005 climbing season, glacial melting caused a large portion of ice to break away from Mount Everest at 20,000 feet, exposing sheer rock that is more dangerous to climb. 
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."
C. The number of amateur climbers who reached the “death-zone” increased steadily during the early 2000s, peaking in 2006.
D. In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years.
E. Although the 2006 season overall enjoyed ideal weather conditions, the one unexpected major storm was one of the worst on record.

Thelionking1234 · Accepted Answer

Official Answer Explanation

(1) Identify the Question Type

This question asks you to explain the apparent contradiction (or discrepancy). You need to first identify the apparent contradiction/discrepancy in order see which answer choices might explain that discrepancy. Because the question uses the word EXCEPT, you will need to identify four answer choices that Explain the Discrepancy and then pick the one that does not.

(2) Deconstruct the Argument

2006 represented the year in which the greatest number of deaths occurred in the “death zone” above 26,000 feet climbing Mount Everest DESPITE the fact that 2006 climbing season enjoyed exceptionally ideal climbing weather.

(3) State the Goal

Find four answer choices that could explain how the greater number of deaths in the “death zone” could have occurred in 2006 despite the exceptionally ideal climbing weather. Look for answer choices that imply greater danger in the “death zone” despite the ideal weather.

(4) Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT. More exposed sheer rock at the end of 2005 that is more dangerous to climb could potentially explain more deaths in the 2006 season, however, the argument stipulates that the deaths occurred in the “death zone,” which is above 26,000 feet. The sheer rock mentioned here is at 20,000 feet and thus would not explain the increase in deaths in the “death zone.”
 
(B) If more climbers were able to get into the "death-zone" than usual, then there were more opportunities for climbers to die in that area. This choice opens up the possibility that climbers in the death-zone died at the same rate as they always have but, because there were more of them, the absolute number of deaths was higher.

(C) If there were more amateurs than ever who made it to the “death-zone,” that could explain the increased number of deaths in 2006. Even in ideal weather, amateurs can be assumed to be more likely to make mistakes than professional climbers.

(D) If ideal weather led to more climbing days than in a typical season, that could explain why more deaths occurred, as climbers had more opportunities to be on the mountain.

(E) If the worst storm on record happened during the 2006 season, and was unexpected, it could account for a higher than usual number of deaths, as climbers may not have had time to adequately protect themselves against the storm. Overall, the weather could have still been ideal for most of the 2006 season and the deaths would have been largely due to the one storm.

aashish778 · Answer

Thelionking1234 , can you please check if OA is correct ? also options C and D are same.

Thelionking1234 · Answer

Sorry for the inconvenience, options are now updated. Yes OA is correct.

Sayan25 · Answer

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. 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.

All of the following, if true, help explain the apparent contradiction in the above passage EXCEPT
 contradiction : despite being favored by fair weather how come the deaths are highest.
what we need to look for? any statement that fails to explain this point
 
A. At the very end of the 2005 climbing season, glacial melting caused a large portion of ice to break away from Mount Everest at 20,000 feet, exposing sheer rock that is more dangerous to climb.  keep it! since deaths being mentioned at death zone i.e aboe 26K feet.If folks find it hard to reach even the 26k mark how come deaths be more that year? 
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."  more the overall folks, more the deaths. e.g if death rate is assumingly 4%. if 100 folks went probably 4 to die.400 folks went 16 to die.  
C. The number of amateur climbers who reached the “death-zone” increased steadily during the early 2000s, peaking in 2006.  thats easy more likelyhood of deaths 
D. In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years.  again average climbers per day increased that year thus helps to explain more deaths  
E. Although the 2006 season overall enjoyed ideal weather conditions, the one unexpected major storm was one of the worst on record.  this one was weakest support i felt.but again imagine a good # of folks if got caught up in the storm and coudn't make it.sure it helps explain the contradiction

alejogh89 · Answer

I cant figure out why is C incorrect. If the argument says that all of the deaths ocurred at the dead zone...how is it possible to assume that deaths could have occurred at the dead zone if rocks are exposed at 20.000 feet? Maybe all these climbers died at 21.000 and not reached the dead zone and hence would contradict the evidence provided on the argument making it even more contradictory.

Can an expert explain this ?

Posted from my mobile device

Can an expert explain this ?

Posted from my mobile device

raunakd11 · Answer

Hello guys! We need to identify the statement which fails to explain the contradiction , i.e. Doesn't give sufficient information regarding the paradox. So let's start eliminating the options using POE, Option A seems good because, it doesn't clearly explain us the contradiction which has taken place in the draft above. We can come to this later. Eliminate Option B , this resolves the contradiction by explaining us that fewer teams were forced to turn back while reaching the 'death zone', which means that large number of teams did not back out , which clarifies that 2006 season was enjoyed by the climbers. Eliminate Option C , a similar phenomena is observed as the number of climbers who reached the death-zone surged , meaning, that 2006 was a great year for the climbers. Eliminate Option D , this seems irrelevant, because the information is out of scope. Eliminate Option E , the statement itself tells us that the year 2006 was enjoyed , which explains the paradox. Now coming back to Option A, we can say that it fails to give us concise information to drive away the fallacy. It fails to explain us if the year 2006 was enjoyed or not. In reference to your query, my friend, alejogh89 The statement C says that, amateur climbers who reached the death zone, saw a surge in the number of climbers from 2000 to 2006, in which it reached the peak. When the number of climbers increase, that itself explains us if the year 2006 was enjoyed by the climbers or not. As the number of climbers increased, it proved the fact that greater number of climbers are interested, and enjoy climbing. Official Answer:- Option A Hope this helps you!

Let me know if the answer does not suffice you. Thank you! Regards, Raunak Damle

sayan640 · Answer

KarishmaB   MartyMurray  , How is D explaining the paradox ?

MartyMurray · Answer

Here's a summary of the apparent paradox:

In 2006, the weather on Mount Everest was better for climbing than usual, but more people perished climbing the mountain than in any other year.

Now, here's (D).

D. In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years.

The implications of (D) are that, in 2006, with fewer climbs suspended, people were allowed by authorities to complete their climbs of Mount Everest on more days than usual because the weather was not "inclement," meaning, basically, bad. Rather, the weather was good.

So, (D) resolves the apparent paradox by showing that the reason more climbers perished than usual when the weather was better than usual was that more climbers were allowed to complete their climbs. After all, if more were allowed to complete their climbs, then it's likely that more reached the unforgiving "death zone" above 26,000 feet, where, we can presume, climbers often perish.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The climbing season of 2006 was the deadliest on record

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The climbing season of 2006 was the deadliest on record

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards