The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   The Rienzi was so constructed as to reduce the risk of

   Out of Scope: how it was constructed We don't know anything about how this ship was constructed, whether or not any special attention was given to reducing the risk of sinking by impact.

   1%
2. B

   Opposite17% picked this

   If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached

   We have derived that the Rienzi was fully flooded when it sank! This is saying, no, not until it had already sunk did it become fully flooded.

   17%
3. C

   Correct71% picked this

   If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into

   Why this is right

   This answer is really weird. I initially labeled it as broken, but here's how I think they'd defend it. Since we know the ship was fully flooded, we know that water entered the ship abnormally fast (since normally, water doesn't enter quickly enough for it to be fully flooded). Did it have to enter abnormally fast via sabotage? No, but it's still a true statement. Pretend you knew that Mary was having a party with cake, and that Kevin may or may not come. It is true to say: If Kevin doesn't come, then there will be cake at the party? Yes, it is true. It seems dumb, because it feels like it's setting up a false choice (there will be cake either way, so it's not like it's contingent on Kevin). You have conditionals that look like this: K doesn't come ? cake ~cake ? K comes We know there will be cake. So it is true that if Kevin doesn't come, there will be cake. The contrapositive is not possible, because there will be cake. Similarly, we know the Rienzi was fully-flooded, so we know that water flooded into it unusually fast. That may or may not have been due to sabotage (maybe the wood of the ship was unusually sun damaged / maybe strong winds led to quicker deterioration and flooding), but it will still be true to say, "If it wasn't sunk by sabotage, then water flowed in unusually fast".

   Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   71%
4. D

   Unsupported Causal Relationship8% picked this

   If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly, it would

   We know that if the Rienzi hadn't been fully flooded, it would have imploded. But we can't say "If it had sunk, it wouldn't have been fully flooded" (that's the opposite of common sense).

   8%
5. E

   Unsupported Causal Speculation2% picked this

   The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist imploding under

   This is speculating a reason why the Rienzi didn't implode. We're told that ANY ship that sinks that deep when not fully flooded will implode. So this answer would be contradicting that idea, if it's implying that some ships are made to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure. According to the conditional in the second to last sentence, the fact that the Rienzi didn't implode tells us that it was fully-flooded. And the idea is that being fully-flooded is what keeps the ship from imploding (if you're fully flooded, then the water pressure inside is just as strong as the water pressure from outside). Just like (A), we have no information about how the Rienzi was constructed.

   2%