Q11 - Studies have shown that the more

[ohthatpatrick]

This is an Explain the Unexpected Result problem.

Let's first frame the paradox provided in the stimulus:
i. the more high-stress points a bridge has, the more likely it is to fracture at some point
yet
ii. fractures don't actually develop at high-stress points but rather elsewhere on the bridge

The question stem makes clear that we need to explain that 2nd fact.

(B) is the correct answer. It explains why we don't see fractures at high-stress points (those points are reinforced) and why we do see fractures elsewhere (stress has been transferred from the high-stress points to other points on the bridge).

===other answers===
(A) This indicates that the 2nd fact holds for structures other than bridges as well, but we still haven't explained why it is true for any of these structures.

(C) This explains how high-stress points are created. It doesn't explain why we don't see fractures occurring at those high-stress points or why we do see fractures occurring at other spots on the bridge.

(D) A fact about structures WITHOUT high-stress points is not going to help us explain why bridges WITH high-stress points fracture some places but not others.

(E) This seems tempting (mainly because it sounds like the often-correct "third factor" answer in a causal argument). However, even if bad construction is to blame for high-stress points and high probability of fracturing, we still can't explain why the fracturing occurs away from the high-stress points.