The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together. The storm's violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Ships as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
(B) Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
(C) Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.
(D) The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up on the surface.
(E) If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Edmund Fitzgerald
This topic has expert replies
-
Patrick_GMATFix
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1052
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:30 am
- Thanked: 335 times
- Followed by:98 members
Premise: if the separate pieces had been floating, the storm would have forced them to drift apart. However the pieces were found together at the bottom
Conclusion: The breakup of the hull did not cause the sinking (in other words, the ship did not break up on the surface)
To come up with assumptions, think of what could make the argument false. For instance, the ship could have broken up on the surface and the pieces could have drifted apart, then underwater currents could have brought them back together. The author assumes that this did not happen.
The full solution below is taken from the GMATFix App. Use it to review each answer choice more closely.
-Patrick
Conclusion: The breakup of the hull did not cause the sinking (in other words, the ship did not break up on the surface)
To come up with assumptions, think of what could make the argument false. For instance, the ship could have broken up on the surface and the pieces could have drifted apart, then underwater currents could have brought them back together. The author assumes that this did not happen.
The full solution below is taken from the GMATFix App. Use it to review each answer choice more closely.
-Patrick
- Check out my site: GMATFix.com
- To prep my students I use this tool >> (screenshots, video)
- Ask me about tutoring.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
[email protected]
- Elite Legendary Member
- Posts: 10392
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
- Location: Palo Alto, CA
- Thanked: 2867 times
- Followed by:511 members
- GMAT Score:800
Hi EricKryk,
This is an example of an Assumption question. We'll need to understand the logic behind the prompt and then connect the ideas to figure out the assumption behind the logic.
The Facts:
-The cause of the wreck of the ship in a severe storm is unknown.
-The sunken wreckage showed the hull in TWO PIECES lying CLOSE together.
-The storm's waves would have caused FLOATING pieces on the surface to DRIFT APART.
The Conclusion:
-The BREAKUP of the ship's HULL can be RULED OUT as the cause of the sinking.
The Logic:
Since the two sunken pieces of the hull were close together, the argument can be made that the waves did NOT cause the sinking (because the waves would have then caused the two pieces of the hull to drift apart, and that did NOT happen).
For the logic to hold true (that the waves did NOT cause the sinking), we have to assume that nothing else could have occurred that would "undo" what the waves normally do (cause the 2 pieces to drift apart). Answer B matches that prediction.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
This is an example of an Assumption question. We'll need to understand the logic behind the prompt and then connect the ideas to figure out the assumption behind the logic.
The Facts:
-The cause of the wreck of the ship in a severe storm is unknown.
-The sunken wreckage showed the hull in TWO PIECES lying CLOSE together.
-The storm's waves would have caused FLOATING pieces on the surface to DRIFT APART.
The Conclusion:
-The BREAKUP of the ship's HULL can be RULED OUT as the cause of the sinking.
The Logic:
Since the two sunken pieces of the hull were close together, the argument can be made that the waves did NOT cause the sinking (because the waves would have then caused the two pieces of the hull to drift apart, and that did NOT happen).
For the logic to hold true (that the waves did NOT cause the sinking), we have to assume that nothing else could have occurred that would "undo" what the waves normally do (cause the 2 pieces to drift apart). Answer B matches that prediction.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
