Hi,
One quick doubt on a question I encountered in the critical reasoning bible :-
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.
In this question the answer in the CR bible has been mentioned as E.
And I got the answer as C. See my justification is that answer 'E' has a 'it is possible' which is something like may or may not be inferred from the passage. But choice C clearly states because the standard said that once two inches per 24 hammer blows is reached it stops. That is clearly less strict than no movement at all as pilings before 1700 were used.
So it is basically a clear answer versus a maybe answer
Please guide me where I am going wrong in the understanding.
Thanks.
One quick doubt on a question I encountered in the critical reasoning bible :-
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.
In this question the answer in the CR bible has been mentioned as E.
And I got the answer as C. See my justification is that answer 'E' has a 'it is possible' which is something like may or may not be inferred from the passage. But choice C clearly states because the standard said that once two inches per 24 hammer blows is reached it stops. That is clearly less strict than no movement at all as pilings before 1700 were used.
So it is basically a clear answer versus a maybe answer
Please guide me where I am going wrong in the understanding.
Thanks.
