Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 14:05 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 14:05
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
User avatar
u2lover
Joined: 14 May 2006
Last visit: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 706
Own Kudos:
933
 [23]
Posts: 706
Kudos: 933
 [23]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
20
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
MartyMurray
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,632
Own Kudos:
6,125
 [2]
Given Kudos: 173
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,632
Kudos: 6,125
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
sharadGmat
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Last visit: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 177
Own Kudos:
969
 [2]
Posts: 177
Kudos: 969
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
GMATT73
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Last visit: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 2,877
Own Kudos:
1,256
 [1]
Posts: 2,877
Kudos: 1,256
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If the ship did not implode after sinking, then it was either flooded by sabotage or some other cause which made it fill with water very quickly.

(C)

1:45
User avatar
Gauss
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Last visit: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 100
Own Kudos:
Location: Italy
Posts: 100
Kudos: 433
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
jaynayak
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Last visit: 07 Jul 2008
Posts: 894
Own Kudos:
Posts: 894
Kudos: 639
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
mourinhogmat1
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Last visit: 11 Aug 2015
Posts: 213
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 13
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Posts: 213
Kudos: 199
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
IN2MBB2PE
Joined: 20 Aug 2020
Last visit: 17 Feb 2024
Posts: 130
Own Kudos:
35
 [1]
Given Kudos: 82
Posts: 130
Kudos: 35
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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))
User avatar
NA08
Joined: 08 May 2021
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
18
 [1]
Given Kudos: 72
Location: India
Schools: Wharton '27
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.46
Schools: Wharton '27
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
Posts: 25
Kudos: 18
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
unraveled
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,720
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,720
Kudos: 2,258
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
rishabh1105
Joined: 25 Mar 2025
Last visit: 20 Jun 2025
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 21
Kudos: 9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
But Rienzi sank, and no point makes us infer this.

(B) If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor.
It mentions, any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode - which means this cannot be true or inferred

(C) If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast.
From reading last 2 lines of the passage we are clear that the evidence points to that Rienzi had been fully flooded.
|
V
Now if read 3rd last line it says.
"Full flooding can be achieved, however, by sabotage" - So one way to achieve full flooding is by sabotage.
|
V
Passage also says- (FACT)
"Normally when a holed ship (not sure holed by whattt!!!) 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." - So normally if a holed ships sinks as quick as R, water doesnt enter ship quickly enough to fully flood. Got it
|
V
But in our case it full flooded - which means the water must have rushed quickly enough to fully flood

Which is what our choice says, if sabotage didnt happen, then water must have rushed quickly for full flooding to happen

(D) If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly it would have imploded.
No information tells us about slow sinking.

(E) The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure.
May be. But cannot be derived from any of the statements provided.
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,390
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99,977
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,390
Kudos: 778,356
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VasundharaS
Why not B?
Please review the discussion above. For example, this post explains why the answer is not B.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts