The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole in its hull, possibly caused by sabotage. Normally, when a h...

Mazen February 15, 2020

Diagramming one specific sentence

Regarding the following sentence: "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." In this sentence, can we treat the "normally, when a holed ship sinks as rapidly as the Rienzi did" as an overarching condition or circumstance? Moreover, regarding the rest of the statement, "water does not enter the ship quickly enough for the ship to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor," am I incorrect to treat this part of the statement as a conditional within the overarching conditional? Meaning "for the ship to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor" the requirement (i.e., the necessary) is that the water must enter the ship quickly? In retrospect, FF (Full Flooded)-------->WESQ (Water enters the ship quickly) ~~WESQ--------~~FF When we press on with the stimulus, "the Rienzi (R) did not implode (~~I)." And having established prior to this statement that ~~FF------->I; or, ~~I------>FF. We deduce that R=FF------->WESQ So what caused the FF? we know that sabotage can effect this outcome FF. But what if it is not sabotage? It would be answer-choice "C"? Is my dissection accurate?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

SamA February 17, 2020

Hey @Mazen,

I responded to your last question about the Rienzi, but I'll try to explain further how I diagrammed it. The concept of "normal" conditions makes this an unusual question, and there are different ways we can express this and still be correct.

I like your idea of an overarching circumstance of what normally would occur when a ship sinks as rapidly (SR) as the Rienzi did. Under these circumstances, what would we expect to occur?

You and I diagrammed this differently, but I think we are saying the same thing. What I call SR, you call ~~WESQ. These are the same thing, but only under "normal" conditions, which you are accounting for as part of your "overarching circumstance." I just preferred to include this in my diagram to help me remember.

SR - - - - (normally) - - - - -> not FF

The rest of your logic is sound. I am totally in favor of employing your own strategy when you take on an unusual question.