Question

During the 1980s and 1990s, the annual number of people who visited the Sordellian Mountains increased continually, and many new ski resorts were built. Over the same period, however, the number of visitors to ski resorts who were caught in avalanches decreased, even though there was no reduction in the annual number of avalanches in the Sordellian Mountains.
Which of the following, if true in the Sordellian Mountains during the 1980s and 1990s, most helps to explain the decrease?

• A. Avalanches were most likely to happen when a large new snowfall covered an older layer of snow.
• B. Avalanches destroyed at least some buildings in the Sordellian Mountains in every year.
• C. People planning new ski slopes and other resort facilities used increasingly accurate information about which locations are likely to be in the path of avalanches.
• D. The average length of stay for people visiting the Sordellian Mountains increased slightly.
• E. Construction of new ski resorts often led to the clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches.

Hint:

When resolving a paradox where the number of incidents decreases despite an increase in population and constant hazard level, look for an explanation based on improved safety measures, better prediction, or more effective avoidance strategies. The key is separating the people from the danger.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Paradox
This question presents a paradoxical situation. We have several facts that seem to contradict each other.
Fact 1: The number of visitors increased continually. (More people exposed to risk).
Fact 2: The number of avalanches remained constant. (The level of natural hazard did not decrease).
Unexpected Outcome: The number of visitors caught in avalanches decreased.
The paradox is: With more people and the same number of natural disasters, why did fewer people get caught?

Step 2: Analyzing the Task
We need to find an explanation that resolves this paradox. The explanation must show how the increased number of people could be better protected from the constant number of avalanches. The solution must lie in some form of improved safety, prevention, or avoidance.

Step 3: Evaluating the Options
(A) This describes the conditions under which avalanches occur. It explains the cause of the hazard but does not explain why fewer people were getting caught in them.
(B) This confirms that avalanches are destructive, reinforcing the severity of the problem, but it does not help explain the decrease in human casualties.
(C) This option provides a perfect explanation. If resort planners and builders had better information about where avalanches are likely to occur, they would build the new ski slopes, lifts, and facilities in safer locations, away from avalanche paths. Even as more tourists came to the mountains, they would be skiing and staying in areas that were specifically chosen to be safe. This effective avoidance of the hazard would directly lead to a decrease in the number of people caught in avalanches, despite the increase in visitors.
(D) An increased length of stay would likely increase the exposure of each visitor to potential avalanche risk, which would deepen the paradox rather than resolve it.
(E) This option suggests that construction made the avalanche problem worse by removing natural barriers. This would make the decrease in people getting caught even more mysterious and would strongly contradict the observed outcome.
Step 4: Final Answer
Option (C) is the correct answer. It resolves the paradox by introducing the factor of improved knowledge and planning, which allowed for better risk avoidance. The new infrastructure was built in safer places, effectively separating the growing population of visitors from the constant natural hazard.