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.

could somebody please justify how my perspective is wrong, or rather...how to get the correct perspective for answering CRs...

[spoiler]
OA is E,as the CR bible says that there are two definitions of refusal,
1/ point after which pile would go no further, 2/ contemporary standard of less than 2 inches per day.
the answer E mentions about 'standard of refusal' now which is the standard among the two.. one will be guessing...rite?

whereas IMO B , this is my perspective....
"The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends largely on how deep the pilings are driven" this sentence to me means... safety depends on how deep the pilings are driven...
Refusal means the point after which no further the piling would go deep or just goes 2 inches deeper a day.
Now something which goes only little deep as possible might not be as deep as required to give safety.
so the "standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge"[/spoiler]