Can statements

about it, "can" introduces a possibility, not a certainty. Our Sufficient and Necessary statements create links that are certain between variables. One thing must be sufficient for another thing to occur. One thing must be required for another to occur. Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

I believe C to be the best answer choice, given the ones listed, however, the 'must be true' in the stem was where I found confusion. With 'can,' introducing a possibility, I saw it as not necessarily true and initially ruled it out due to lack of certainty. Any help to clear that up would be great. Thank you.

@jebharter, Happy to help. Let's take a look at (C). From the stimulus, we know that if a ship isn't fully flooded, it'll implode. We also know that the Rienzi didn't implode. From this, we know that the Rienzi was fully flooded. We also know that it isn't normal for a ship that sank as fast as the Rienzi to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor and that full flooding can be achieved by sabotage. From this, we can conclude that something weird happened to the Rienzi. It might have been sabotage, but we can say for certain that it was. (C) says, "If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast." (C) must be true. If the Rienzi wasn't sunk by sabotage, then we know that water had to have flooded into it unusually fast because it was fully flooded. Thus, (C) is the correct answer. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

@Ravi I still don't understand the the logical position of the word "sabotage". In the stimulus, there are two sentences that mentioned "sabotage". First, "possibly caused by sabotage". Second, "fully flooding can be achieved by sabotage". Could you tell me if they can be both diagrammed and if so, how to diagram them? I am always confused by the sentences with the combination logic of both the "conditional reasoning" and "causation". It is so hard for me. And I didn't see form C that "if the R wasn't sank by sabotage, then it is fully flooded".

Ravi, In your response to @jebharter, you state in the third the following: "From this, we can conclude that something weird happened to the Rienzi. It might have been sabotage, but we can say for certain that it was." I would like to bring your attention to the word "can" in "...but we can* say for certain that it was." I believe that you meant "can't." If I am wrong, and you did mean to say "can," then would please explain the logic to me in a different way? Thank you

I still do not understand how C is the answer. I get the diagramming but this answer is opening up the possibility of an option that I feel cannot be proven logically with the diagramming. I understand why the other choices are not correct but I cannot seem to understand why C is correct and MBT. I have read all the other comments and answers and it still is not clear to me. Please help.

Hi Melissa, I am not an instructor. Like you, labored quite a bit with this question. So, from one student to another, let me see, if what worked for me can help you. Add to your acquired diagramming skills, your command of the English language an syntax. Also, trust yourself for this moment, you are not taking the LSAT an so you have nothing to loose. Do you agree with me that the stimulus establishes the following facts: first, that the Rienzi was fully flooded; second, that it was fully flooded when it reached the ocean floor; and third, that one possible causal explanation for a ship to get fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor is sabotage? If you are able to get that much from the stimulus by using a combination of your command of the English language and some basic understanding necessary-sufficient, then you're home. How come? Well, if it is not sabotage that flooded the Rienzi when it reached the ocean floor, then what was it? We know that Rienzi was fully flooded. Fully flooded means that water entered the ship overwhelmingly quickly; isn't that the image that a flood conjures up in your mind, "a quick invasion of large quantities of water that sank the Rienzi? But again what could have been the cause??? Well, sabotage is one explanation. But if it isn't sabotage, then what is it? The passage establishes that "NORMALLY" water does not enter the ship fast to flood it that quickly. And C is contemplating the absence of sabotage. It is now abundentantly clear, I hope, that something "ABNORMAL" had flooded the Rienzi fast enough that it precluded it from imploding before reaching the ocean floor. Rather than using the word "not normal," C uses the word "unusual." What do you think? Please be critical. I don't get offended :))).

I think that's pretty good, @Mazen. After I spent about 5 minutes trying to figure out how to diagram the thing, I semi-gave up because it just didn't seem to work. Then I looked at the answer choices, and realized it was really simple to eliminate the other answers. The video helped me quite a lot, though, because I had been trying to diagram everything.