The solidity of bridge piers

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: unsafe2% picked this

   The Rialto Bridge was built on

   Nothing in this passage ever defined what would constitute "safe" pilings, so we have no way to derive that the Rialto was unsafe.

   2%
2. B

   Out of Scope: safety7% picked this

   The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety

   Nothing in this passage ever talked about whether bridges were safe or unsafe.

   7%
3. C

   Unknown Comparison9% picked this

   Da Ponte’s standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge builders

   We don't know anything about any other bridge builders in the late 1500's, so we can't derive any comparison between Da Ponte and them.

   9%
4. D

   Too Strong: no3% picked this

   After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the

   We don't know anything about "after 1588", other than "pilings were driven to 'refusal' until at least 1700". We certainly can't logically derive that zero bridges were every built on pilings again, after that fateful year of 1588.

   3%
5. E

   Correct80% picked this

   It is possible that the pilings of the Rialto Bridge could have been driven deeper even after the standard

   Why this is right

   The standard of refusal met by the Rialto Bridge was, "If we hammered this another 24 times, the piling would penetrate at most 2 inches". The standard of refusal isn't a true stopping point to the penetration of the piling, but it's like the "diminishing returns" stopping point. You meet the standard of refusal once it's clear that you can whack it all you want, it's only penetrating another inch or two. By definition of how the standard is worded, at the moment you first meet the standard of refusal, it is possible the pilings could be driven 1-2 inches deeper.

   Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   80%