Vineetk - Have you seen this question on the GMATPrep S/W?
This doesn't seem like one!

Cheers

for assumption once I see the likely answer choice, I used the negation test to confirm and do not read other answer choices.

is my thinking correct? for only assumption question, this strategy can save time. I practice I see it is efficient.

but for strengthen and weaken question, I do not use this strategy

any one has any experiece on this, pls comment.

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown.When the sunkem wreckege of the vessel was found,researchers 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 break up 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 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 not violent enough to have cause 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 very long.

Need detail explanation ......................

You need detailed explanation but you must tell us what is your confusion??
Conclusion: the break up of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.
Premise: Because Hull cannot be close to each other in such case.

Assumption: There is no other possible way by which hull can come close to each other. B says it.

Hello mun23,

Hope I can help you with this one.

The argument states that the ship was found broken in two pieces. These two pieces were found right next to each other. However, the waves of a storm would have separated any two pieces floating for even a short while in the sea. Since the two pieces were not found far from each other, the ship's breakage might not be the cause for its sinking. The assumption here is that the waves could not have separated and then brought back the two pieces together so that they could be found right next to each other.

This point is clearly stated in option B.

However, let us analyze all the options one by one.

(A)Ships as large as Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather. This is irrelevant. The suinken wreckage of the ship was found. We do not care of the probability of a large ship sinking since we already know that this particular ship sunk. We need to find the reason that caused the ship to sink.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again. This option is the right answer based on previous explanation.

(C)Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have. This is irrelevant. It gives us no information about the role of waves in sinking the ship or whether the ship broke before sinking.

(D)The waves of the storm not violent enough to have cause the ship to break up on the surface. The waves might not have been strong enough to cause the breakage of ship. However, there might have been some other cause(e.g. colliding with an iceberg) for the breakage of ship which could have lead to its sinking. We are not concerned about the cause of the breakage of the ship.

(E)If the ship broke up before sinking,the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface very long. The argument mentions that the pieces were found sunk. Hence, this point is irrelevant.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification.


_________________

Thanks
Kris
Instructor at Aspire4GMAT

Visit us at http://www.aspire4gmat.com

Post your queries
Join our free GMAT course

New blog: How to get that 700+
New blog: Data Sufficiency Tricks


Press Kudos if this helps!