If we isolate this passage without the question stem, I suppose we could identify an argument. The first sentence suggesting that the Rienzi might have been sabotaged would probably qualify as the conclusion. It is great that you are making an effort to identify facts vs. arguments. For the most part, this will help you greatly.
In this case, it does not matter. This is a "must be true" question, which means that we are to accept everything in the stimulus as fact. We are not asked to evaluate an argument or identify a conclusion. Rather, we have to connect the given facts in order to make our own conclusion. This also applies to "cannot be true" questions.
ShirnelMarch 11, 2020
Ok, so I need to understand this because this affects my strategy and approach to evaluating the responses. For "must be true" question I am making a transitive statement or as you call it a sufficient and necessary chain and I am identifying a conclusion that is a fact based on the sufficient and necessary chain. Is that correct?
SamAMarch 16, 2020
@Shirnel,
Yes, on certain questions that will be the correct procedure. However, there will not always be a chain of sufficient and necessary conditions. Sometimes it is just a series of facts that might not be related. The point is, you must choose an answer choice based only on information from the passage. You use this information to make a conclusion about what must be true or what cannot be true. Many of these questions will require a good understanding of sufficient and necessary principles as well as quantifiers.
