"Everest: To Climb or Not to Climb" is an article by Kelli Stynton that explains why climbing Mount Everest is a massive risk and questions the future fate of the mountain as a tourist attraction. In the article, Stynton presents the idea of whether Everest should remain open for climbers to scale or whether it should be shut down because of the constant loss of human life on the mountain. She uses two specific paragraphs in the section "Closing Time." to contrast the advantages and disadvantages of keeping Mount Everest open to climbers without choosing a side in this debate. Paragraph 16 of the article primarily describes why Mount Everest should be kept open to climbers. According to Stynton, "shutting down Mount Everest affects Nepal's economy. Local businesses, like …show more content…
Furthermore, paragraph 17 of the article describes why Mount Everest should be closed to tourists. According to Stynton in paragraph 17, "Five years before Sir Edmund Hillary died, he said publicly that the Nepalese government should stop allowing climbers on Everest and give the mountain a break for a few years." Stynton also explains how "Some local people believe that avalanches and earthquakes mean the mountain gods are angry and it's time to stay away." This detail shows the opposite side of the debate about Mount Everest- that it should be closed down for climbers. The testimonial from Hillary and the local myths about the mountain gods show that closing access to Everest will benefit the Nepalese government by proving that it respects both the wishes of climbers like Hillary and the locals' religious beliefs. When describing this debate, Kelli Stynton purposely abstain from taking part in the debate and openly taking sides in order for readers to use the information in the article to form their own viewpoints about whether Everest should be