PrepTest 113, Section 2, Question 2
The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings(84 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThe Rialto Bridge(5 more words not shown)
- BThe standard of(11 more words not shown)
- CDa Ponte's standard(14 more words not shown)
- DAfter 1588, no(13 more words not shown)
- EIt is possible(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“Refusal” sounds as though the piling won't move another inch. But the actual standard allows some movement.
Picture supports driven into the ground to hold a bridge steady. The passage says their depth matters to solidity, which is easy enough to follow. The interesting part is how builders decided they had driven the supports far enough. For this bridge, the test wasn't literally zero movement: twenty-four hammer blows could produce as much as two more inches of penetration and still meet the standard.
What we’re looking for
So an extra inch would be compatible with “refusal” as defined here. The standard also allows zero movement, so we shouldn't claim the pilings definitely could keep moving. For the inference question, my prediction is the more careful version: meeting this standard doesn't establish that further movement was impossible.
Working the answers
- A
We know Da Ponte met the contemporary standard. We aren't told the pilings were unsafe. Allowing a little further movement doesn't itself establish a safety problem; the standard might allow that without compromising the bridge. A adds a negative judgment the evidence doesn't support.
- B
A standard that allows some movement isn't necessarily inadequate for safety. We would need information connecting that permitted movement with an unsafe bridge. The passage explains how the standard was applied, but it doesn't establish that the standard failed to ensure safety.
- C
No comparison with other builders establishes a looser personal standard. Da Ponte is said to have met the contemporary standard. The passage doesn't tell us that his peers required more than he did or that he accepted less than they accepted.
- D
The year 1588 dates the inquiry, not the end of the building practice. The passage describes driving pilings to refusal before 1700. Nothing says that builders stopped doing it after this inquiry. D turns a date attached to one investigation into an unsupported cutoff for all later bridges.
- ECorrect
The standard permitted up to two additional inches after twenty-four blows. That leaves open some continued movement even after the standard was met. We don't know exactly how much these pilings moved, but reaching the stopping standard doesn't prove they had reached an absolute physical limit.
E says further depth was possible. It doesn't claim more hammering definitely would have moved them or that further depth was needed for safety. That modest wording fits what the stated standard leaves open.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.