The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole in its hull,

P The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole in its hull, possibly caused by sabotage.
P:Normally when a holed ship sinks as rapidly as the Rienzi did, water does not enter the ship quickly enough for the ship to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor.
P:Full flooding can be achieved, however, by sabotage.
P:Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode.

C:Deep-sea photographs of the Rienzi where it rests on the ocean floor, reveal that it did not implode.

Which one of the following must be true on the basis of the information above?

A) The Rienzi was so constructed as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact. out of scope

B) If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor. not possible to assume

C) If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast. it is

D) If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly it would have imploded. out the water has time to enter more slowly then not imploding possible

E) The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure. out last premise contraddict this statement

the call seems to be between B and C I pick then C

Will go with C.

The ship didnot implode. Hence that means it was fully flooded.
When a ship sinks too fast it is usually not fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. But sabotage can be used to fully flood the ship.

So for the ship to not implode, it was full but it also sank too fast , hence sabotage may be the cause of the flooding or water flooded into it unsually fast.

Went with C on this one.


A) The Rienzi was so constructed as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact. No risk discussed here
B) If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor. We cant decide on the time of accident based on information given here
C) If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast. Correct because we conclude that full flooding occurred and at the same time there was no imploding
D) If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly it would have imploded. No timing factor have been mentioned in the passage.
E) The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure. OUT OF SCOPE

The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole in its hull, possibly caused by sabotage. Normally when a holed ship sinks as rapidly as the Rienzi did, water does not enter the ship quickly enough for the ship to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. Full flooding can be achieved, however, by sabotage. Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode. Deep-sea photographs of the Rienzi where it rests on the ocean floor, reveal that it did not implode.

Sabotage (S) ---> Full Flooding (FF)
~FF ---> ~ S

Rapidly Sinks (RS) ---> ~ Fully Flooded (FF)


So, RS ---> ~ S (Answer choice C, If not sunk by Sabotage (~s), then Water flooded into it unusually fast aka Rapidly (RS))

Answer choice (A): It is entirely possible that the Rienzi sunk by impact, which caused the water to flood the ship unusually fast. How the ship was constructed is irrelevant and not inferable from the evidence presented in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is directly disproven by the information in the stimulus, since any ship that sinks deep into the ocean floor when not fully flooded will implode, and the Rienzi did not implode. Therefore, the Rienzi must have been fully flooded when it reached the ocean floor.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Indeed, if sabotage was not the reason why the Rienzi was fully flooded and water cannot enter the ship quickly enough, water must have flooded into it unusually fast.

Answer choice (D): There is no reason to suspect that had the Rienzi sunk more slowly, it would not have imploded. The stimulus contains no evidence to suggest that the speed at which ships sink has any effect on whether they implode or not. Furthermore, even if a slower sinking ship has a higher chance of being fully flooded when it reaches the bottom of the ocean, such a ship can still implode. To conclude otherwise would be to rely on the Mistaken Negation of the conditional relationship between flooding and imploding.

Answer choice (E): How the ship was built is immaterial to the information provided in the stimulus: the fact remains that any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode. This answer choice is incorrect.

The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole in its hull, possibly caused by sabotage. Normally when a holed ship sinks as rapidly as the Rienzi did, water does not enter the ship quickly enough for the ship to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. Full flooding can be achieved, however, by sabotage. Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode. Deep-sea photographs of the Rienzi where it rests on the ocean floor, reveal that it did not implode.

Which one of the following must be true on the basis of the information above?

(A) The Rienzi was so constructed as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact. - WRONG. Construction is a factor not covered in the passage and anything that is not covered is best ignored or left.

(B) If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor. - WRONG. It may or may not be so the case. Either possibility exists.

(C) If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast. - CORRECT. Well POE helps here. But unusually fast is the best argument that we have here. We need to be careful with adverbs, however, this one is what we are left with.

(D) If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly it would have imploded. - WRONG. Again, in a must be true question, possibilities not covered is beyond the scope and best not touched upon.

(E) The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure. - WRONG. Wish it was so. But this one is like A only.
Key factors are highlighted in blue.
S ----> H(but may not always be true as there can be other factors which are beyond the scope of this passage)
S ----> FF
nFF ----> I

Since R didn't I(as other factors aren't discussed), it wasn't FF. And, if R wasn't FF then there was no S. Now as we can't get our head around the likely possibilities we can thus move to the choices available.

Answer C.