LSAT 106 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a…

QUESTION TYPE: Must be True

FACTS:

1. The Rienzi didn’t implode.
2. That means the Rienzi sunk fully flooded.
3. Normally, that wouldn’t happen.
4. Sabotage is a possible explanation.

ANALYSIS: All we can really say is that the Rienzi didn’t sink normally and it was fully flooded. We don’t know if sabotage was the cause or not.

___________

1. I don’t see any evidence the ship resisted impacts. It sank.
2. This must be false. It the Rienzi only flooded after it reached bottom then it would have imploded.
3. CORRECT. Either sabotage or some other unusual cause of sinking resulted in the Rienzi being fully flooded before it hit bottom.
4. No…sinking slowly gives even more time for ships to flood, preventing implosion.
5. We don’t have evidence for this. The argument implies that the Rienzi would have imploded if it had sunk under normal circumstances.

Recap: The question begins with “The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a”. It is a Must be True question. Learn more about LSAT MBT questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.