Critical Reasoning

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]

Hi Arora,

Let me put it straight forward for you. Do not want to bore/load you with too much info.

Any inference question should pass the fact test. Which means that the answer choice should be implied by any of the statements/combination of statements in the passage.

Let us take B

B. The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge.

Is there any statement in the passage/combination of statements that brings this inference?

No.. The passage doesnt say that the bridge is unsafe. Never pick an answer thatis not implied directly/indirectly.

The first time I read this question on the CR bible, I remember that I also did not agree with OA.
But this is the small thought that I got convinced upon.

Look at option E:
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.

Key term here is "It is possible that".

Does it say concretely that the pilings of the Rialto Bridge could have been driven
deeper even after the standard of refusal had been met.
NO.
It only says "it is possible that"

Let us see if it agrees with the fact test.
The passage is talking about standard of refusal. And as per passage there are two definitions for it.
As you say We do not know which "Standard of refusal" they are referring to in option E. You are right.
But, Will it really make any difference? I dont think so. Because the option says "it is possible that.."

Last point: it is not "less than 2 inches per day"
It is "less than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows"

Hope this helps!!

option E is correct

standard of refusal;- to the point at which they refused to go any deeper

Rialto Bridge,:- suppose after 20 hammers the piling was not going deeper or in some places after 22 hammers the piling was not going deeper.

so antonia make a standard of piling to be driven untill additional penetration into the ground was no greater than two inches after twenty four hammer blows. this leads to E.

even now during pilling engineers make a standard to do piling by minimum nos of hammers e.g 30 hammers

guys... any thoughts on how i can change my thought process??
would it be like coming across explanations of all such 700-800 level problems one seems to get a knack of it ?
because i feel I always fall in a trap!

One thing i know for sure...i need to read carefully, i did overread 24 blows to 24 hours of blows.

I think the keyword was additional penetration present in the last sentence.
Also, the argument says that Antonio Da Ponte, had met the contemporary standard for refusal...
So, if he had met, then it might very well be the case that he met the safety standard...

Could someone explain why not C ?