GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Oct 2019, 07:17

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
AGSM Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 133
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
GMAT ToolKit User
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2012, 05:31
4
38
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

67% (01:56) correct 33% (02:21) wrong based on 1176 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers 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 breakup 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 the Edmund 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 were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Posts: 81
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, International Business
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.2
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Apr 2013, 13:45
5
2
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.

mun23 wrote:
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 ......................
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 211
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2012, 06:13
Vineetk wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm on Lake Inferior is still inferior. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in 2 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 breakup 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 the Edmund 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 were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.


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

Cheers
AGSM Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 133
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2012, 06:16
Jp27 wrote:
Vineetk wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm on Lake Inferior is still inferior. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in 2 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 breakup 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 the Edmund 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 were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.


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

Cheers


The question is correct and taken from GMAT Prep S/W.
Director
Director
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 712
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Nov 2012, 03:57
1
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 401
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2013, 03:40
1
Premise 1: Vessel found with the hull in two pieces lying close together...
Premise 2: The storm's violent waves would cause pieces to drift apart if separated...

Gap/Assumption: Found connected --> Hull were connected before sinking

Conclusion: The breakup of the hull is ruled out as the cause of sinking

A. The issue is whether the sinking was caused by the breakup of the hull. OUT!
B. If underwater currents connected the hull, then breakup ocurred before sinking. This doesn't rule out the breakup of the hull. BINGO!
C. Sinking speed is not the issue. The issue is whether the breakup of the hull is a suspect. OUT!
D. Seems like the ship might have sunk before breaking up... The strength of the storm doesn't affect the issue of whether to rule out the breakup of the hull as a cause.


Answer: B
_________________
Impossible is nothing to God.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 118
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2013, 21:07
2
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 ......................
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Feb 2013
Posts: 10
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2013, 23:04
mun23 wrote:
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 ......................


Okay, I'll give this a try.

Premise: Some ship has sunk and no one really knows the cause. Eventually the wreckage was found and a hull was discovered in 2 pieces lying next to each other.

Conclusion: Break up of the hull caused the sinking.

We're assuming nothing else caused the ship to sink and that the pieces of the hull found close to each other are evidence of that.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.

Tells you that the current could have caused the pieces to come close together but we're assuming it didn't. Hence correct.



This is a really bad attempt at explaining.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 113
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2013, 23:16
mun23 wrote:
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.
_________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 118
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Mar 2013, 04:11
BangOn wrote:
mun23 wrote:
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.


Hi
I was confused about B and the context of the argument seems unclear to me
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 286
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2013, 19:08
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Please check and follow the Guidelines for Posting in Verbal GMAT forum before posting anything.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 173
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 May 2013, 11:54
2
We need to keep the conclusion in perspective and then look out for assumption-

Conclusion- the breakup of the hulls did not cause the ship to sink
Premise- 2 pieces found together. He adds telling storms would have taken the 2 pieces far away
Assumption (prethinking) - maybe since the pieces are together it is not the reason for the ship sinking

Ans choice-
?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather. Ok we want info that relates to the 2 pieces of hull. we can put this could be true category.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again. hmmm.. looks good. PARK
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have. :idea: we are worried about ship sinking here
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface. Could be true. again
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long Irrelavent. Uses a few words from the arguement to confuse us

The option B is a 'defender' type assumption which defends the assumption telling 'there is no other cause for the hull being together'
_________________
I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2012
Posts: 70
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2013, 21:20
2
This is a very good question..took me almost 2 minutes :(

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers 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 breakup 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?

The argument is about the wreckage of a ship. The cause of the wreck is unknown, but the author tries to hypothesize about what could have caused this disaster. The hull was found in 2 pieces lying close together. The entire argument builds on this premise by stating that the waves would have caused the pieces to drift apart. It jumps to the conclusion that the breakup of the hull cannot be the cause of the sinking, courtesy the premise stated before.

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather. - Out of scope as it tries to establish some relationship between Edmund and the others.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again. - Correct. Even if the waves made the pieces drift apart, the underwater currents could have made the 2 pieces come closer to each other. The author implicitly accepts that such a scenario is not possible.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have. - Wrong. The argument is about the pieces being close to each other and not about the rate of sinking.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface. - Wrong. This merely states that the ship did not sink due to breaking. But nothing is mentioned about the hull or any other premise specific parameter.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long. - Wrong. This is restating what we already know. The pieces of the hull were found in sunken wreckage. This means that they did not remain on the surface for long.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 237
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2013, 17:47
Vineetk wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers 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 breakup 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 the Edmund 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 were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.


Well my approach is to identify the conclusion of the passage first because that's the most important part of the stimulus. Here, that is : Therefore the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Now , lets look at the answer choices :
A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather.// Not related -> out of context or it's against the mentioned facts. The sink actually sank !
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.// probably true.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.// Quietly ? Doesn't support the conclusion.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.// Doesn't talk about the hull-> Eliminate.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.// Out of context-> Eliminated.

Answer is B.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 40
Reviews Badge
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2014, 03:18
btg9788, nicely done.

I really liked your explanation. Kudos for that.
_________________
'The best way to thank or appreciate efforts on this forum is to give Kudos.'
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 268
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2014, 11:33
4
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers 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 breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

IT IS BEING ARGUED THAT THOUGH THE TWO PIECES OF HULL HAVE BEEN FOUND CLOSE TOGETHER UNDER WATER, THE BOAT DID NOT SINK DUE TO BREAKAGE OF HULL ABOVE WATER.....BECAUSE IF IT HAD BROKEN ABOVE WATER THE PIECES WOULD HAVE DRIFTED FAR APART.......
THEREFORE THE HULL DID NOT BREAK ABOVE WATER ... BUT MUST HAVE BROKEN UNDERWATER..........AND IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT IT IS NOT THAT THE HULL BROKE ABOVE WATER AND THEN THE UNDERWATER CURRENTS BROUGHT THE TWO PIECES TOGETHER UNDERWATER.......------RATHER THE HULL MUST HAVE BROKEN UNDERWATER AND THEREFORE SINKAGE OF SHIP MAY NOT BE BECAUSE OF BREAKAGE OF HULL ABOVE WATER......

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather. IRRELEVANT
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.......CORRECT
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.QUICKLY ---- IRRELEVANT
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.NO MENTION OF THIS NATURE
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED AFTER THE SHIP BROKE IS IRRELEVANT


KUDOS IF U PLEASE.............
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 169
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2019, 02:28
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
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
D
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 5022
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2019, 02:53
Premise: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown.
Conclusion: therefore the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking
IC: When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers 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
so as to find the answer , we need to find option which upon negation breaks/ weakens the conclusion:

we need to find cause of what could have been the reason why the hull two pieces found by searchers as together..
option B
Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
negation of B : Underwater currents at the time of the storm did move the separated pieces of the hull together again.

so the negation of option B weakens the IC :

Vineetk wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers 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 breakup 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 the Edmund 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 were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2864
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Feb 2019, 14:06
2
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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Status: Gathering chakra
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 434
Premium Member
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jun 2019, 09:59
Premise:
1) 2 pieces of sunken hull found close together
2) violent storm waves would cause broken pieces to immediately separate
Conclusion:
3) the ship did not sink due to the hull breaking

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
-- irrelevant, other ships don't matter
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
-- if the hull pieces moved later, then the ship might have sunk due the hull breaking, the pieces initially separated and this effect was masked by the currents, this strengthens the conclusion
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.
-- irrelevant, rate of sinking doesn't matter
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
-- irrelevant, we don't know what caused it to sink to begin with, maybe it wasn't the waves but that the ship hit a rocky shoal
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.
-- actually weakens the conclusion, since then the ship could break up on the surface and then the pieces would not separate but sink down together
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm   [#permalink] 08 Jun 2019, 09:59

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





cron

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne