Question

1a. reread paragraph 4. what is the authors counterargument to shutting down the everest industry? theres no question that guiding on everest is ethically fraught. but shutting the industry down would anger the outfitters, clients, and, most of all, the sherpas. that last group would lose jobs that pay between $2,000 and $6,000 per season, in a country where the median income is $540 per year. if, say, 1 percent of american college - aged raft guides or ski instructors were dying on the job—the mortality rate of everest sherpas—the guiding industry would vanish. but himalayan climbing is understood to be extremely dangerous, and people who play the game still cling to its romantic roots in exploration rather than its current status as recreational tourism.

Explanation:

The author argues that shutting down the Everest industry would anger outfitters, clients, and especially Sherpas who would lose well - paying jobs (compared to the country's median income). Also, Himalayan climbing is seen as extremely dangerous but has a romantic exploration heritage that keeps it alive despite risks.

Answer:

Shutting down the industry would anger outfitters, clients, and Sherpas who would lose jobs that pay well relative to the country's median income, and the romantic roots of Himalayan climbing in exploration keep it going despite the risks.