The climbing season of 2006 was (PARADOX EXCEPT Question)

[DevanshN3]

Hello Experts !

I got the following question, about which I have a doubt, in one of the MGMAT CATS. I also searched for this particular question in the forum but they were a bit different than this one:

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.

My Understanding of the problem:

I was able to eliminate Choice B and C. But in A,D and E I really got Stuck as none of them explains why "ALL Deaths occurred in death zone"
.Among these three, I eliminated Choice A as it somewhat indicated the likely hood of all deaths in death zone (above 20000 feet, at-least better than D and E)

But in the End, I chose option E for two main Reasons:
1.) "One unexpected storm was a single event" This could not be held accountable for an entire 2006 season. Because if we do so, then it means there were zero deaths for an entire 2006 season other than those occurred in that single storm.
2.) It clearly fails to explain why ALL deaths occurred in the *death zone*.

I request you to please point me what am I missing here ?

Very Respectfully,
Devansh

[qianl891]

Well, I am a little uncertain about A and E. Then I choose A.

Here is how it goes:
Situation:We should find a reason why deaths occurring in “death-zone” above 26,000 feet are more than any other year even though the 2006 season enjoyed exceptionally ideal climbing weather compared to more typical years.

A : has nothing to do with 26000 feet-----the main subject of the argument.
If any, it just tells us that climbing teams are more likely to die at 20000 feet, actually weakening the argument to some degree I guess.

So A is irrelevant.

E: it refers to an unexpected storm. It does not have to "account for the all deaths in the climbing season of 2006"----what you are thinking.
It just needs to account for the differences between the year 2006 and any other years. In that case, it works.

Hope it helps and wait for instructors to correct my view if I have any mistake.
Thank you ~