LSAT Set Test IV #6

punitkaur wrote:The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole
in its hull, possibly caused by sabotage. Normally,when
a holed ship sinks as rapidly as the Rienzi did, water does
not enter the ship quickly enough for the ship to be fully
flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. Full flooding
can be achieved, however, by sabotage. Any ship that
sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will
implode. Deep-sea photographs, taken of the sunken
Rienzi where it rests on the ocean floor, reveal that the
Rienzi did not implode.
Which one of the following must be true on the basis of
the information above?

(A) The Rienzi was so constructed as to reduce the
risk of sinking by impact.
(B) If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only
after it reached the ocean floor.
(C) If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water
flooded into it unusually fast.
(D) If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly, it would have
imploded.
(E) The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist
imploding under deep-sea pressure.

OA after brainstorming...

Tough argument. The conclusion i derived is that the ship sunk by sabotage because it did not implode, and that the ship was fully flooded, and water got in the ship fast, thus, the ship sunk rapidly.

IMO D is the correct answer. If it sunk more slowly, means that water got in the ship slowly and sunk slowly, thus it wouild have imploded.


Yhis is to the best of my ability

This is an inference question involving heavy formal logic. It is next to impossible that you would get a question like this on the GMAT.

Anyways, the answer is C.

The second-to-last sentence reads:

"Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode."

This means that if a ship sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded, it is sufficient to conclude that it will implode. This yields the following conditional statement:

If a ship was not fully flooded when it sank, then it will have imploded.

The contrapositive of this conditional statement is:

If a ship did NOT fully implode, then it was NOT not fully flooded when it sank deep into the ocean, or:

If a ship did NOT fully implode, then it WAS fully flooded when it sank deep into the ocean.

The final sentence tells us that deep-sea photography has "revealed" that the Rienzi did not implode. Therefore, according to the conditional statement above, it is sufficient to conclude that the Rienzi was in fact fully flooded when it sank into the ocean.

The second sentence of the passage tells us that normally these kind of ships (ie, ships that are sinking by water flooding in through a hole) are NOT fully flooded when they sink. But full flooding can be achieved by sabotage (third sentence).

But because we have deduced that the Rienzi WAS in fact fully flooded, either water flooded it abnormally fast, or else it was sabotaged. (Or, in other words: either it was sabotaged or else water flooded it abnormally fast.)

Or, in other words: If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast. (Choice C)

great question....it was always between b and c for me...as usual stuck betwen two choices...

great explanation testluv --as usual

I was also stuck between B and C.

Testluv Great explanation.

I was also stuck between B and C.

Testluv Great explanation.

I was also stuck between B and C.

Testluv Great explanation.