A passenger ship sank

My pick is D.

What is the OA?

kvcpk wrote:A passenger ship sank as a result of a hole in its hull. Normally, when a punctured ship sinks as rapidly as this boat did, water does not enter the ship quickly enough for it to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. Full flooding occurs more often, however, when the puncture is the result of sabotage. Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode. Photographs of the boat on the ocean floor reveal that it did not implode.

Which one of the following must be true on the basis of the information above?

A. The passenger ship was constructed so as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact.
B. If the passenger ship became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor.
C. If the passenger ship was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it at an unusually rapid rate.
D. When ships are punctured by sabotage, the hole formed in the hull is generally wider than when the puncture is accidental.
E. The passenger ship was strongly constructed so as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure.

IMO D

IMO C.

I am for C too

OA C

Still waiting for some good explanation.

I was choosing between C and D.

These MUST BE TRUE type questions can be so tricky because often times, the "likely to be true" answer choices will also jump out at you.

The important things to note about the ship were:
1 - the ship was fully flooded (you know this because the ship did not implode according to the pictures)
2 - generally, unless an act of sabotage occurred, water does not flow in quickly enough for the ship to be fully flooded.

There are two common answer choices for MUST BE TRUE questions:
1 - a rephrase of a premise
2 - an answer choice that combines the logic of 1-2 premises.

C - Let's try to combine the two premises above: Since we know that the ship was fully flooded --> we know that maybe an act of sabotage occurred OR that something else caused the water to flow in at an unusually high rate to cause the ship to be fully flooded. Answer choice C describes this by saying if it wasn't sabotage, then something else (an unusual circumstance) caused the ship to be fully flooded.

D - Too much assumption here. This is likely, but how do we know that this MUST be the case? It is possible that when the ship's hull is punctured by sabotage, it is because the saboteur pokes many small holes throughout the hull. It doesn't necessarily have to be one BIGGER hole to let more water in. Does this make sense?

Hope this helps.

I picked C on basis of following reasoning

Not Fully flooded ship -> imploded

Not imploded -> fully flooded

Now it does no say that fully flooded is "always" the result of sabotage, rather it says that "more often" this is the case.

Also it says that "normally" water does not enter the ship quickly enough to b fully flooded.

But we know that the ship was fully flooded from above. So this was not a "normal" circumstance.

Hence if it was not sabotage, it was an unusually rapid rate of water entry.

Hope this helps.

My pick was C

because the ship did not implode ...means that the ship was sabotaged or that even though it wasnt a sabotage, the water filled in so rapidly that it was fully flooded and hence did not implode

A. The passenger ship was constructed so as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact. out of scope..cannot be inferred
B. If the passenger ship became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor. it would then have imploded
C. If the passenger ship was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it at an unusually rapid rate.
D. When ships are punctured by sabotage, the hole formed in the hull is generally wider than when the puncture is accidental. out of scope..cannot be inferred
E. The passenger ship was strongly constructed so as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure.out of scope..cannot be inferred

Thanks everyone for your inputs!!

kvcpk wrote:A passenger ship sank as a result of a hole in its hull. Normally, when a punctured ship sinks as rapidly as this boat did, water does not enter the ship quickly enough for it to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. Full flooding occurs more often, however, when the puncture is the result of sabotage. Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode. Photographs of the boat on the ocean floor reveal that it did not implode.

Which one of the following must be true on the basis of the information above?

A. The passenger ship was constructed so as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact.
B. If the passenger ship became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor.
C. If the passenger ship was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it at an unusually rapid rate.
D. When ships are punctured by sabotage, the hole formed in the hull is generally wider than when the puncture is accidental.
E. The passenger ship was strongly constructed so as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure.

i dont know what to do to understand the argument if there are so many new words to me like this one