CR doubt

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times

CR doubt

by apex231 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:39 pm
The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends largely on how deep the
pilings are driven. Prior to 1700, pilings were driven to "refusal," that is, to
the point at which they refused to go any deeper. In a 1588 inquiry into the
solidity of piers for Venice's Rialto Bridge, it was determined that the bridge's
builder, Antonio Da Ponte, had met the contemporary standard for refusal:
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.

Which one of the following can properly be inferred from the passage?

A. The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings.
B. The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge.
C. Da Ponte's standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge
builders of his day.
D. After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of
refusal.
E. It is possible that the pilings of the Rialto Bridge could have been driven
deeper even after the standard of refusal had been met.

OA E

Now the correct answer choice perfectly makes sense, no issues.
However, why is option C incorrect? Obviously, contemporary standard for refusal is less stricter than that prior to 1700. So what's wrong in this answer choice?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

by karthikpandian19 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:32 pm
The basic context here is :
This passage describes the 'refusal" system prior to 1700. And then it explains the 1588 building, Rialto bridge method of piling.

So appropriately the INFERENCE (which is asked for) should be relating the both and concluding about the Rialto bridge which is relevant "E" statement


C - Compares Da ponte standard with his contemporaries which focuses only the second part of the sentence.

Hope it clears your doubt

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times

by apex231 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:45 pm
karthikpandian19 wrote:The basic context here is :
This passage describes the 'refusal" system prior to 1700. And then it explains the 1588 building, Rialto bridge method of piling.

So appropriately the INFERENCE (which is asked for) should be relating the both and concluding about the Rialto bridge which is relevant "E" statement


C - Compares Da ponte standard with his contemporaries which focuses only the second part of the sentence.

Hope it clears your doubt

In a 1588 inquiry into the solidity of piers for Venice's Rialto Bridge, it was determined that the bridge's builder, Antonio Da Ponte, had met the contemporary standard for refusal:
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.

Revisiting this question again i noticed the information in bold above. What this means is that Antonio Da Ponte atleast met the contemporary standard for refusal but the bridge could have also met the stricter criteria of total refusal. So we can't ascertain that for sure. I guess this is why we can eliminate C.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:44 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

by [email protected] » Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:04 am
Experts,

Can you please comment why C is incorrect. Seems like a reasonable inference.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:59 pm
Thanked: 20 times

by MBA Challengers » Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:47 am
Hi,

We can start by dividing the question into separate premises and then check the options for an appropriate inference:

Premise 1: Solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends on the depth of the pilings
Premise 2: Prior to 1700, pilings driven to "refusal" level beyond which it could just not be driven deeper
Premise 3: Inquiry into 1588 RB reveals 2 things:
i. contemporary standard for refusal ie standard level of depth for the refusal in that period had been met
ii. the piling left room for additional penetration of up to 2 inches after 24 hammer blows

Now, moving on to the options:
A. There is no evidence to this effect in the stimulus. INCORRECT.
B. The stimulus in no way points out that this level of refusal led to bridges falling down or hampered their safety in any way. INCORRECT.
C. Now the bone contention can be negated by the statement: the bridge's builder, Antonio Da Ponte, had met the contemporary standard for refusal. The phrase "contemporary standard for refusal" implies the standard of refusal followed by bridge builders in that era and day. And the passage mentions that Da Ponte had followed the contemporary standard for refusal. INCORRECT.
D. The stimulus mentions that prior to 1700 pilings were driven to the point of refusal. INCORRECT.
E. This point is substantiated by sub-point ii of Premise 3 whereby the inquiry resulted in the conclusion that the piling could be hammered down to a maximum of a further 2 inches with 24 hammer blows. So, while the piling followed the contemporary standard for refusal, it still left room for a possible further hammering down of the piling. CORRECT.

Thus, the answer is E.
Log on to www.mbachallengers.com for
Easy strategic GMAT prep
For any queries mail us at [email protected]
Follow MBA Challengers on Facebook

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:44 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

by [email protected] » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:17 am
Thanks MBA Challengers.

Looks like the entire option is just a play on the word contemporary.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:59 pm
Thanked: 20 times

by MBA Challengers » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:52 am
Hi nishatfarhat87,

You got it... It is a clever word play on "contemporary"!
Log on to www.mbachallengers.com for
Easy strategic GMAT prep
For any queries mail us at [email protected]
Follow MBA Challengers on Facebook