The climbing season of 2006 was the deadliest on record for

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. 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.

(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) In recent years, more amateurs have attempted to climb the world's great peaks, including Everest.
 
(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 major storm was one of the worst on record.

Postal · Accepted Answer

A is wrong because we are not told about the warm wheather but about good climbing weather in the stimulus
B resolves the contradiction. fewer where sent back means more unexperienced continued to the top and died in the death zone.
C Strengthens the paradox by pointing out that in recent years even more amateurs participated therefore more deaths should have been
D fewer days could be the reason of fewer deaths, contradicts the argument
E Could be the reason, but its too general. Besides we don't know anything about the storm - its new information. Perhaps people could have been warned about it and nothing bad happened

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The mountaineering experts have asserted that exceptionally good weather is directly linked to the record number of fatalities. The correct answer choice will demonstrate the nature of that link.

(A) Whether or not the climbers expected the good weather and were subsequently surprised does not explain how this surprise would contribute to the record death toll.

(B) CORRECT.  While it may be reasonable to assume that good weather would cause a lower percentage of people attempting to reach the summit to perish because bad weather typically creates complications which have fatal consequences, the absolute number of fatalities could increase if a much higher number of people attempt to reach the summit. This answer choice states that there was a significant increase in the number of people entering the “death-zone,” the area of the mountain where “almost all” of fatalities took place. Hence, this provides a reasonable explanation of how the good weather was a cause of the record number of fatalities.

(C) This implies that the “death-zone” is more survivable during good weather than in bad and does more to refute the experts’ conclusion than it does to explain it.

(D) The fact that modern equipment protects climbers in bad weather does not provide any insight as to why good weather would result in an increased number of fatalities.

(E) The decrease in the number of expert climbers does nothing to explain the overall increase in deaths. In order to do so, the answer choice must either show or imply that either non-expert climbers have a higher probability of dying due to the good weather, or the number of non-expert climbers has increased enough to overcome any decrease in the probability of them perishing and any deaths that may have occurred in the expert group prior to their decrease in numbers; the answer choice does neither.

thevenus · Answer

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.
 warmer or more cold? never mentioned in the argument-only "ideal climbon weather"is mentioned. 
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."
 "fewer" is critical here.More no.of people went for climbing and more no.of people died, so "fewer"of more is how much? 
C. In recent years, more amateurs have attempted to climb the world's great peaks, including Everest.
 recent years? we are talking about 2006 ONLY. 
D. In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years.
 so this could have resulted in fewer deaths,not more. 
E. Although the 2006 season overall enjoyed ideal weather conditions, the one major storm was one of the worst on record.
 In weakening the argument, we can very well the extreme ACs which provides external info and this suggests the best option.

IMO (E)

EvaJager · Answer

I also think it is B.

a. The warmer the weather, the more likely it is that crevasses (deep holes) will open up unexpectedly in the ice.
 Ideal weather not necessarily warm weather. Nowhere is stated that accidents were more frequent on warmer days. 
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 teams went into the "death-zone", more chance for accident. Maybe fewer were forced to turn back if conditions were so good...  
C. In recent years, more amateurs have attempted to climb the world's great peaks, including Everest.
 Accidents happen also to professionals, no reason to infer that most of the accidents involved amateurs. 
D. In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years.
 We are not talking about the daily rate of accidents or something like this. 
E. Although the 2006 season overall enjoyed ideal weather conditions, the one major storm was one of the worst on record.
 Can we infer that most of the accidents occurred on that specific day of the worst storm?

If conditions almost similar, even "good" weather, and if fewer teams were forced to turn back,
then more teams passed the critical point, hence reasonable more accidents.

What is the source and OA?

dentobizz · Answer

Bumping for review and further discussion
New GmatClub project Click here

Theory on Paradox Questions

Source: Manhattan Gmat
https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... screpancy/

Source: Magoosh
concept-article-on-cr-paradox-by-magoosh-163071.html

Source: gogmat
concept-article-on-resolve-paradox-from-gogmat-com-163081.html

Source: 800gmat
concept-article-on-resolve-paradox-by-800gmat-com-163076.html

Source: 800score.com
concept-article-on-resolve-paradox-by-800score-com-163074.html

Source: Veritas
concept-article-on-resolve-paradox-by-veritas-163073.html

Thursdays with Ron

jlgdr · Answer

I though the answer was D. If authorities suspended climbing on fewer days because of the better weather then more people actually climbed and so we can expect that even with the same probability of deaths, the number of deaths will be higher. Plus, the answer choice attacks both sides of the question, the subject about deaths as well as the weather which is very convincing in correct answer choices for paradox questions. Anyways, answer as stated above is B, which I had as contender but discarded because it didn't actually deal with the problem of the weather so it didn't really explain the whole paradox

Just my 2c
Cheers
J

mba1382 · Answer

If you look at the stem, it's mentioned that   Oddly, though, the 2006 season enjoyed exceptionally ideal climbing weather compared to more typical years .  Thus, even if on fewer days climbs are suspended, it doesn't really explain our conclusion i.e. Almost all of these deaths occurred in the unforgiving “death-zone”  above 26,000 feet.

Option B states that more climbing teams entered the  "death-zone"  compared to previous years. So we can expect that more people perished in attempting to reach the summit.

gmatprav · Answer

B it is.

The question states "almost all the deaths occurred in the death-zone".

Between B and D. B gives us clear reason that many people entered into death-zone Thus we can deduce why more number of people died. D means more people may have started the climb but nothing about them entering the death-zone.

ynaikavde · Answer

CR type: strengthen the conclusion
Conclusion:good weather caused more fatalities

A. All of the forecasts were for extremely bad weather; the good weather was a significant surprise to all of the climbers.  Does not answer why we had more fatalities

B. The good weather prompted significantly more people than ever to try to reach the summit and enter the “deathzone,” many of whom would have turned back at a lower altitude in poorer weather.
 This sentence is stating that the number of people climbed increased and hence the the number of fatalities were more. clearly strengthens the conclusion

C. The good weather caused the “death-zone” to have warmer temperatures and less intense winds than in recent years.
 does not give us any idea about fatalities

D. Modern equipment is particularly effective in protecting climbers from the elements in bad weather.
 out of scope

E. Many accomplished climbers don’t attempt Mt. Everest during good weather because they feel it is not a challenge.
 Nothing is mentioned as type of climbers which perished Incomplete.

aniteshgmat1101 · Answer

Answer should be B.
Situation: Despite good weather, number of fatalities are more in 2006.
Analysis: Good weather must be propelling a reason which was causing more fatalities.

Option B situates the reason, more the number of people going to "unforgiving death zone", more the number of fatalities.

Wonderwoman31 · Answer

Hi  nightblade354 ,

Your inputs required, please.

nightblade354 · Answer

Wonderwoman31 , this seems like a fine 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. 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.

Thoughts: 2006 was the deadliest on record, but there were idea conditions. Hmm, how do we resolve this? Well, they tell us that the majority if deaths occurred beyond a certain point, so this is our big clue. 
 
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. --  Where are we told the weather is warmer? Maybe ideal conditions are cooler. So this doesn't help us.

(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." --  Bingo. So more teams hit the zone where most die, therefore we can conclude that more died as a result. This does strengthen our conclusion because the assumption we have to make (on a percentage basis) is far smaller than any assumption we have to make for any other choice. When forced to assume, and it will not happen often, we must go with the tiniest assumption. And this one is fine. We are told that most deaths occur at a certain point, so if more reach that point we know that more will die as a result, based on sheer numbers alone.

(C) In recent years, more amateurs have attempted to climb the world's great peaks, including Everest. -- OK, what if only one amateur climbed Everest and what if it wasn't in 2006? This doesn't help our cause. 
 
(D) In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years. --  Already told us this information in the question, so this doesn't help us.

(E) Although the 2006 season overall enjoyed ideal weather conditions, the one major storm was one of the worst on record. - -OK, so this storm hit on the weekend when most climbers were climbing and killed most of those involved? Come on. This assumption is massive and we cannot make it.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

(A) The warmer the weather, the more likely it is that crevasses (deep holes) will open up unexpectedly in the ice.
We have no evidence whether the warmer weather was part of the clear weather

(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 feels like an ideal reason for the occurence of the tragedy

(C) In recent years, more amateurs have attempted to climb the world's great peaks, including Everest.
We cannot come to a conclusion just because more no of amatuers climbed

(D) In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years.
This also feels right however doesn't specify exact reasons it tales a wider approach

(E) Although the 2006 season overall enjoyed ideal weather conditions, the one major storm was one of the worst on record.
This cannot have accounted for all the tragedies 
Hence IMO B

SatvikVedala · Answer

Option (A) -> If this case is considered TRUE then there is also a possibility that climbers would have taken safety measures considering deep holes

Option (B) -> If this is TRUE, it connects deaths occurred over 26000 Ft & climatic conditions good for climbing. CORRECT

Option (C) -> Out of Scope

Option (D) -> No evidence of inclement weather compared to typical years in the argument

Option (E) -> Whether this one major storm contributed to all the deaths? We don’t know

djangobackend · Answer

D - In 2006, authorities suspended climbs due to inclement weather on fewer days than the average for more typical years. - we already know this as part of premise that weather conditions were good than other years

C- recent years? we are concerned about 2006

A - irrelevant

E - we don't know how that one major storm affected, it could be possible that hardly anyone went out for climb on that storm days.

B - so basically more people reached the "death zone" which also has the highest number of causalities so yes this can explain.

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 for

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 for

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