Highest Major Summits in India
| Summit | Elevation (meters) | Mountain range | Prominence (meters) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kangto | 7,060 | Assam Himalaya | 2,195 |
| Saser Kangri III | 7,495 | Saser Karakoram | 850 |
| Langpo | 6,965 | Sikkim Himalaya | 560 |
| Sri Kailash | 6,932 | Garhwal Himalaya | 1,092 |
| Mount Lakshmi | 6,983 | Rimo Karakoram | 800 |
Mountain summits are often described in terms of their elevation, or height above sea level. But a summit's elevation may not be as good an indication of how high the mountain appears to observers as is the summit's prominence, or its height above its surroundings, and these values can differ significantly. For example, the Indian mountain of ______
Which choice most effectively uses data from the table to complete the example?
Explanation
Context: The passage explains that elevation and prominence — height above sea level versus height above the surrounding terrain — can diverge sharply, and the example must display that divergence.
Answer: A) Saser Kangri III has an elevation of 7,495 meters but a considerably lower prominence of 850 meters.
Why? Saser Kangri III has the greatest elevation in the table yet one of the lowest prominences, 850 meters. Placing both figures for a single mountain side by side is what demonstrates that the two values "can differ significantly," which is the claim the example is meant to support.
Traps:
- B) Kangto's prominence exceeds Langpo's → comparing two mountains on the same measure shows nothing about elevation diverging from prominence.
- C) Kangto and Mount Lakshmi in different ranges → mountain range is irrelevant to the contrast the passage draws between the two measures.
- D) Sri Kailash at 6,932 meters → it pairs an elevation with a range, reports no prominence, and the table never establishes it as its range's highest summit.