PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 6
The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a(87 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe Rienzi was(11 more words not shown)
- BIf the Rienzi(13 more words not shown)
- CIf the Rienzi(11 more words not shown)
- DIf the Rienzi(8 more words not shown)
- EThe Rienzi was(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“Possibly caused by sabotage” is easy to accept. A hole could have been made deliberately, but nothing yet tells us that it was. Keep that uncertainty separate from the facts about how the ship sank.
Normally, a ship descending this quickly reaches the bottom before water has completely filled it. Sabotage can make complete flooding happen, but “normally” leaves room for an unusual case without sabotage. So I wouldn't jump from full flooding to a definite accusation of sabotage.
The implosion rule gives us something firmer. Any ship that sinks deep while not fully flooded will implode. The Rienzi went deep and did not implode. It therefore must have been fully flooded rather than reaching that depth with an unfilled interior. We can't accept both the rule and a deep, incompletely flooded ship that somehow escapes implosion.
What we’re looking for
For the inference question, hold on to that required flooding and the distinction between normal and exceptional conditions. We know the ship filled; we don't yet know whether sabotage explains how it filled quickly enough.
Working the answers
- A
The passage doesn't describe features intended to prevent sinking after an impact. The hole's origin is uncertain, and avoiding implosion later doesn't tell us how the ship was designed to handle a collision. This adds a construction claim without support.
- B
The timing is wrong. If the ship had remained incompletely flooded while sinking deep, the stated rule says it would have imploded. It cannot explain the photographs by waiting until after reaching the ocean floor to become fully flooded. The flooding had to prevent the condition that would trigger implosion on the descent.
- CCorrect
If sabotage wasn't responsible, we still have to account for the full flooding. The ship sank so rapidly that, under normal conditions, water would not enter quickly enough to fill it before it reached the floor. Yet it did fill in time to avoid implosion. Without sabotage, this must have been an unusually fast inflow of water.
The “if” matters. C doesn't claim that sabotage is ruled out. It tells us what must be true in the alternative where there was no sabotage: the water entered faster than the normal pattern described for such a rapid sinking.
- D
A slower descent doesn't establish that the ship would remain incompletely flooded. It could allow more time for water to enter. Under the rule, what matters is whether the ship is fully flooded when it sinks deep, not simply whether its descent is slow or fast. D gives no basis for a definite implosion prediction.
- E
This invents a special construction feature instead of using the stated rule. That rule covers any ship sinking deep while incompletely flooded; it gives no exception for a strong hull. The supported explanation for the Rienzi avoiding implosion is complete flooding, not unusually strong construction.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.