Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q2 The solidity of bridge piers

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends largely on how deep the pilings are driven.

Statements

causal difference-maker solidity of depends how deep pilings bridge piers on are driven

Prior to 1700, pilings were driven to the point at which they refused to go any deeper.

The Rialto Bridge met the contemporary standard for refusal:

Evaluate

This feels like a loose assemblage of facts. The Overlapping Concepts are .

But it doesn't seem like there is any Conditional logic to use, any Causality to notice, any Math to compute, or any Pivots to create tension.

Goal

Having no clue what we're looking for, let's just find the most provable answer, while being cautious any time we see stuff that sounds like it's Too Strong/Specific, an Unknown Comparison, or Out of Scope.

2.

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

  1. The Rialto Bridge was built

    Out of Scope: unsafe

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

    2% picked this

  2. The standard of refusal was

    Out of Scope: safety

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

    7% picked this

  3. Da Ponte’s standard of refusal

    Unknown Comparison

    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% picked this

  4. After 1588, no bridges were

    Too Strong: no

    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% picked this

  5. Correct

    It is possible that the

    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.

    79% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free