- Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:24 pm
We will post a more complete explanation soon, Lina, but the short answer for now is this: because it is "widely known" that the squads save many lives, their presence gives the perception that climbing is safe (if I get in trouble, no problem, the rescue squad will save me!) It is the presence of the squads that may actually be encouraging climbers to take risks that they are not experienced enough to handle! Abolishing the squads will not give the impression that the risk is lower, but rather that it is higher (if I get in trouble I am on my own), and if that's true it would explain why the experienced climbers think it would be better to abolish them than to keep them around.
A curious paradox, and an interesting twist on the "surprisingly bad result" scenario that we see so frequently in this type of question. The squads should be making things safer, but in fact the experts think they are making it worse! We see that all the time in questions about strong safety requirements coupled with poor safety records, or someone who is supposed to be very good at their job getting terrible results, or a medical treatment that should be making things better but the patients are doing worse than patients not getting the treatment, etc. In most of those cases the resolution is some form of "if not for this good thing the results would be even worse. In this case, though, the thing that should be making things better actually IS making it worse, at least according to some people. Sort of like widening the road to make it safer, and then drivers feel so safe that they drive more recklessly as a result. Unintended consequences!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam