PrepTest 106

[lcid:3521] Prep Test 106 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

The Rienzi , a Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Facts

Valid or Flawed

NA

Question Type

Must Be True Questions

Stimulus Summary

The Rienzi sank from a hole - sabotage? Normal - Ship sinks as rapidly as R → ~Fully flooded Full flooding can happen with sabotage Sinks without full flooding → Implode R - ~Implode

Answer Anticipation

While this is a Must be True question, it starts off with a question - was the Rienzi sabotaged? The argument states that it’s possible, and then it dives into what we know. Since the stimulus starts with an implied question, it’s likely that the correct answer will address that question. So what do we know about the Rienzi and sabotage? Well, we know that the Rienzi didn’t implode as it sank to the deep ocean. Based on the second-to-last sentence, we know that this means it didn’t sink without full flooding - or, to get rid of the double negative, it fully flooded. Normally, a boat that sinks as fast as the Rienzi did doesn’t fully flood, but that can happen with sabotage. So, since the Rienzi did fully flood, we know that sabotage is possible. And if it wasn’t sabotage, then something abnormal happened during its sinking. Let’s find an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The Rienzi was so Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    How the Rienzi was constructed and sinking by impact are both out of scope of the stimulus.
  2. B
    If the Rienzi became Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The Rienzi didn’t implode, which means that it was fully flooded when it sank, contradicting this answer.
  3. C
    If the Rienzi was Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    The Rienzi didn’t implode, so we know it was fully flooded when it sank. That doesn’t normally happen, but it can with sabotage. So either the Rienzi was sabotaged, or it fully flooded in an abnormal manner. This answer is thus supported by the stimulus.
  4. D
    If the Rienzi had Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    It’s hard to infer hypotheticals, and we don’t know what would have happened if the Rienzi sunk more slowly. We can say that the Rienzi would have imploded if it sank when it wasn’t fully flooded, but we don’t know that it sinking slowly would have prevented full flooding (if anything, it seems that sinking more slowly would have provided more time for it to fill up!).
  5. E
    The Rienzi was so Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The stimulus doesn’t discuss the construction of the Rienzi, so this answer is out of scope. And while we know it didn’t implode, that seems to be because it was fully flooded, not because it was particularly well built.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion