#2 - The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (E)


This interesting stimulus contains two definitions of “refusal:” an initial definition that implies refusal is a point at which pilings will go no further, and then a second, contemporary standards definition of refusal that reveals that refusal is a point at which additional penetration into the ground is no greater than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows. The stimulus is a fact set, and thus there is no conclusion present.

Answer choice (A): Although there was an inquiry into the solidity of the piers of the Rialto Bridge, the results of that inquiry are not disclosed. The only other information we are given is that the pilings of the Rialto Bridge met the contemporary standard of refusal, but this is not sufficient to indicate whether the pilings of this particular bridge were safe. Hence, this answer fails the Fact Test and is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Similar to answer choice (A), we have insufficient information to make this judgment.

Answer choice (C): This answer is somewhat opposite of the information in the stimulus, which states that Da Ponte had met the contemporary standard of refusal.

Answer choice (D): This is another Opposite answer. The stimulus indicates that bridges built prior to 1700 were driven to the point of refusal.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As stated in the stimulus, “he had caused the pilings to be driven until additional penetration into the ground was no greater than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows.” The statement indicates that additional penetration was possible with a sufficient number of hammer blows.

[christianitylove]

I don't understand why letter (E) is the correct answer.
It is possible that the pilings of the Rialto Bridge could have been drive deeper even after the standard of refusal had been met.

I thought this would be the wrong answer because it says that Antonio Da Ponte actually had cause the pilings to go deeper than the standard of refusal while letter (E) says the pilings of the Rialto Bridge COULD HAVE been driven deeper. Isn't letter (E) saying that the pilings of Rialto Bridge could have been drive deeper when in reality it didn't?

[rpark8214]

Hi,
I understand why answer choice (E) is the correct answer, but what are the faults with (C)? Are we not in the position to infer how strict Da Ponte's standard was compared to other builders of his day? If Da Ponte met the contemporary standard for refusal, while his peers conformed to a different standard (till refusal), could one argue Da Ponte's standard was in fact less strict? Your input is much appreciated!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Choice (A) claims that the pilings were unsafe. However the only mention of safety we have is that the bridge met one standard of safety for the day.

Choice (B), similar to Choice (A), seems to misinterpret the information as saying the opposite of what it did: we have some evidence that the bridge was safe, and no evidence that it was unsafe.

Choice (C) relies on knowledge of other bridges. Since the stimulus only claims that Da Ponte met the standards for his day, he may very well have had the strictest standard of his era. We know that the bridge satisfied some minimum requirement, but we do not know how much further Da Ponte went in the "refusal" for the bridge.

Choice (D) seems to contradict the premise that until 1700, bridge pilings were driven to a point of resfusal

Choice (E) is tricky, but picturing what this standard for refusal really is could help us. In Da Ponte's case, this standard was hitting the pilings with a hammer a number of times and seeing how far down it went. Refusal in this case is how resistant the piling is to being driven deeper in the ground.

Da Ponte met his era's standard because the pilings traveled less than 2 inches after being struck 24 times with a hammer. This answer choice correctly infers that it is possible to drive the pilings just a little bit deeper into the ground after the minimum requirement is met.

[LSAT2018]

Choice (E) is tricky, but picturing what this standard for refusal really is could help us. In Da Ponte's case, this standard was hitting the pilings with a hammer a number of times and seeing how far down it went. Refusal in this case is how resistant the piling is to being driven deeper in the ground.

Da Ponte met his era's standard because the pilings traveled less than 2 inches after being struck 24 times with a hammer. This answer choice correctly infers that it is possible to drive the pilings just a little bit deeper into the ground after the minimum requirement is met.

So is there a difference between the contemporary standard for refusal in 1588 and the definition for refusal (prior to 1700, pilings were driven to “refusal,” that is, to the point at which they refused to go any deeper)?

[kg70382]

I do not understand why (e) is the correct answer for this Must be True question.

Page 132 of the LRB states that a wrong answer for a Must be True question includes an answer that could be true. It seems like answer choice (e) fits this category, because of the language "It is possible..." and "...could have been...". Based on the explanation on page 132, why isn't answer choice (e) automatically eliminated?

Thank you!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi kg70382,
For a question like this you need to match the could be true language in the argument with the could be true language in the answer. For example the first sentence is saying that "largely" the solidity of the bridge depends upon the depth of pilings. The rest of the passage goes on to say that the original standard for depth changed when someone when deeper with the pilings.
This leads to E as the correct answer, because the standard/contemporary depth could change if bridge builders were able to go deeper with the pilings as the passage has shown us.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[Hazel03]

Hi, I understand why (E) could be right in comparison to the others but not entirely sure!

Does the fact that the bridge could be deeper is because the 1588 standard is different from the norm prior to 1700? That is, there could have been a change in standards between 1588 and 1700? Are we supposed to infer that. how?

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there, Hazel03, let me see if I can help drive this one home for you! The issue here has nothing to do with anything changing in the standard for refusal after 1700, or after 1588, or ever. It only has to do with what we know about the Rialto Bridge at the time it was built.

The standard for refusal at the time the bridge was built was "until additional penetration into the ground was no greater than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows." This means that "refusal" didn't mean it wouldn't go any further no matter what you did - it meant only that if you hit it with a hammer 24 times, it went no more than 2 inches deeper. So it is possible that it could have gone an inch deeper, or an inch-and-a-half deeper, or even two whole inches deeper, and still met the standard for refusal! That's what answer E is saying - the pilings weren't necessarily at the absolute final stopping point, but that they had met the contemporary standard, which allowed for SOME further depth, but not much.

An analogy here might help, borrowing from another LR question: what if I said the current definition of "full employment" means no more than 5% unemployment? If we are currently at "full employment", it is possible that unemployment levels could get even lower than they are. Maybe we are at that 5% mark, but it could get down to 4%? Or to 3%? Or to zero? The standard has been met, but there could still be some room for improvement anyway. That's what answer E is about - there is perhaps still some room for improvement, even though the standard for what is good enough has been met.

I hope this explanation has led to a deeper understanding!

[Hazel03]

Thank you so much for that great explanation!