mallya12 wrote:
i understand ans B but doubt is with E. if the pieces of the hull did remain on the surface for very long, then it would be separated by the violent waves. Wouldnt this destroy the conclusion.
I am confused someone please explain clearly
The passage concludes that "the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking" because "the storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating
even briefly on the surface to drift apart."
From this evidence, we know that the pieces would have drifted apart if they were separated on the surface for
even a very short amount of time. If the hull came apart on the surface, the pieces would separate whether they were only
"briefly" on the surface and then sank, or whether they were on the surface for
a longer amount of time and then sank.
The two pieces of the hull were found close together, leading the author to conclude that the pieces did
not separate on the surface for even a brief length of time, and thus "the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking."
Take another look at answer (E):
Quote:
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.
This answer choice specifies that the pieces of hull would be on the surface for a "not... very long" time. As stated above, if the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of hull would have drifted apart
almost immediately.But remember, the author concludes that breakup of the hull did NOT cause the ship to sink. So it really doesn't matter how long the pieces might have been on the surface if the hull broke up BEFORE sinking, because the entire conclusion is that the hull did NOT break up before sinking.
The argument doesn't depend on (E) to be valid, so choice (E) is out.
I hope this helps!