#26 - All oceangoing ships carry seawater ballast tanks

[Adam Tyson]

A doesn't justify the conclusion, Leela, for the same reason that E is a required assumption. Even if A is true, we can't know that this is a viable solution unless it's actually physically possible for some ships to do this! A strengthens, as does C, in my opinion, but neither one is either necessary or sufficient for this argument.

[jnez1313]

Possibly Reading too much into this question...

Ive been having some trouble with this question, maybe I am reading too much into it. The explanations above make sense and I narrowed it down originally to C or E. I negated the answers and originally believed that E was better, but then I skimmed over the question again and was caught up on my personal experience with ships in the Navy.

The first sentence says that all oceangoing ships carry ballast tanks whose weight improves stability. Then it says to maintain proper stability, water must be pumped in and out... So as I read my prephrase was something like "The question assumes ballast tanks need to function/not flip over".

However, I was confused because to me it seems the question assumes that without improved proper stability, the ships would not run. AKA they would flip over, sink, etc. But The question only says they improve stability and nothing about a not stable ship still being able to do its job. Then I thought of my own experience moving cargo/people on a Navy vessel. Often the ballast tanks dont work or if they break, it just makes things difficult, it doesn't stop anything or automatically make the ship sink.

So when I negated E, I came up with there are no oceangoing ships whose stability could be adequately maintained...
But then I think I started thinking too much and thought the question was trying to trick me. Because even if there were no ocean going ships whose stability could be adequately maintained, that doesn't mean the viable way suggested would not work. It just means the ships would be extremely unstable. To me an unstable ship is not the equivalent of a ship not able to do this.

For example, a ship going out to midocean while stable with full ballast tanks. Completely empties them, and is then unstable. So the ship is bobbing up and down like a cork or listing 20 degrees to its side. Both of these are by definition unstable. However this doesnt mean the ship is sinking or will flip over. Then it could refill its tanks and achieve stability and go on its way.

Maybe I am reading too much into it. But in my mind unstable on a ship does not equal an automatic flipping over or sinking. So if every ship could not adequately maintained while emptying/refilling the tanks that to me is not an assumption required.

Again I may be reading too much into it, but it seems to me the question is is vague on its definition of oceangoing stability.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi jnez1313!

First, let me just say Happy Veteran's Day! Thank you for your service!

Second, yes, you were bringing a little too much of your outside knowledge into this one.

In Assumption questions, you are looking for something the author assumes to be true if the author believes that the conclusion follows from the premises. So you shouldn't be asking yourself what the author is assuming for each premise. We accept the premises as fact. The assumption comes from using those facts to infer the conclusion. So you wouldn't form a prephrase after the first couple of sentences because those are premises. The second sentence tells us "To maintain the ship’s proper stability...". Nothing in there says that not maintaining the proper stability means the ship will flip or sink. And, again, we can't say the argument assumes that ships will flip or sink because that second sentence is just a premise (from which we can assume nothing) and the conclusion does not say anything about flipping or sinking either.

You definitely know more about ballast tanks and ship stability than the average person! But as LSAT takers, we don't really need to know what's meant by "stability." It doesn't matter if this means that the ships will flip over or just encounter some other problems. All we need to know is that there's a certain level of stability that ships need to maintain and that the ballast tanks help them do that. And if the author believes that emptying and refilling ballast tanks in the middle of the ocean is the solution to this problem, then the author must be assuming that the ship will be able to maintain adequate stability to allow it to complete this process. If it can't maintain adequate stability to complete the process, that doesn't necessarily mean it will sink. But it does mean that this solution would not be a very good one.

It's always tough when you encounter an LSAT question that involves a topic in which you have outside knowledge! But the LSAT is never testing you on your outside knowledge and the things that are true in LSAT world don't necessarily have to reflect what is true in the real world. Remember to stick with the specific wording on the screen and the argument structure and be careful not to apply something you know that was not already directly stated.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[copeycope5@gmail.com]

Hi guys! I was trying to break down this question, since I understand the approach of why one would choose E, but I still chose C and if I was correct, if that would be a viable answer.

I understand that C is also providing us with a conditional statement, but its' argumentation leaves a weird feeling of something wrong. I was trying to still attack the argument from the "wreaking ecological havoc" since it is also an assumption on the arguments' part that just dumping a bunch of fish in a random environment could still be harmful (i.e., what if the corpses caused by the perishing of the fish then caused bad effects on the ecology of the midocean?), so I thought of a conditional statement that would work: "If sea creatures are able to wreak ecological havoc in a new environment, it must be one in which they are able to survive." Can someone let me know if that is either a viable answer or the reasoning behind why it might be wrong?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Copeycope,

Let's use the assumption negation technique here. For conditional statements, we find the negation by stating that you can have the sufficient condition even without the necessary condition. In your statement, it would be negated by saying that sea creatures can wreak havoc even in places where they cannot survive. That still doesn't really weaken the conclusion because the argument includes the possibility that survival isn't required. The term "usually" in stimulus allows for the possibility that some times there are creatures that don't survive but still do harm the habitat.

On the other hand, if we negate answer choice (E), it would say that there are no oceangoing vessels that can maintain stability while emptying/refilling mid-ocean. If that were true, the solution suggested wouldn't work. If it cannot maintain stability, it couldn't do the maneuver. Therefore, answer choice (E) is required for the conclusion to follow.

Hope that helps!