This is a very good question..took me almost 2 minutes ![:(]( "Sad")
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.
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.