Talk:Hurricane Retirement/@comment-27094037-20171017002050

I think it's C, because retirements should depend on how a country is impacted by such storms. Example of that is Otto 2016, which Costa Rica is heavily impacted by that storm, so it is retired, but some people disagreed that Otto should be retired, because I think their reason is "Otto only caused hundred million damages, compared to Lee 2011 which caused billions, but not retired."

Letter B is justifyable, in case if some storms like Hanna and Gordon those storms caused decent amount of damage and deaths.

I personally think that Juan of 1985, Gordon of 1994, Hanna of 2008 and Lee of 2011 deserved retirement, but didn't in reality.