Columnist: The dangers of mountain climbing have been greatly exaggerated by the popular media. In the 80 years from ...

Jasmin1 on July 20, 2021

Explanation on other answer choices

Can someone explain how the other answer choices are wrong some of them seem relevant in evaluating the answer

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on September 27, 2022

Hi, our author tells us that the risks of mountain climbing are overstated, since there are more deaths from driving in France in one year than there have ever been climbing Everest.

This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, far more people drive than climb Everest. Perhaps the fatality rate is higher fir climbing Everest than they are for driving, but since so many more people drive than climb, the total deaths are higher for drivers. Additionally, this compares only one mountain to an entire country of tens of millions of people. Why not include all deaths from climbing and all countries?

A is not a flaw. The author used the France data point to illustrate that more people die driving than climbing Everest. if that number were a bit higher or lower in another year the effect would be the same.
B Is also irrelevant. France was chosen to illustrate a point. If Germany only had 2000, it would still have the same effect.
C is irrelevant. The flaw has nothing to do with changing safety measures.
D is exactly what we said.
E looks attractive, but it does not actually describe the flaw. The author cherry picked both data points, this only encompasses one of those cherrypicked datapoints.