Q2 - The solidity of bridge piers

[geverett]

This is interesting. Can someone reconcile why they seem to tell you that prior to 1700 pilings were driven to the point where they refused to go any deeper, but then they give you an example of Rialto Bridge, which was built before 1700, and it was not driven to refusal?

[shipra_mehta]

I'm having a problem with this question as well. In the beginning of the paragraph, they did say that the pilings were driven to "refusal" which is where they couldn't go more than that & since the bridge was built before 1700, how are we to know that the penetration didn't match the refusal standards of that era?

[alinanny]

I am having the exact same problem the OP had a year ago. Refusal meant that couldn't go deeper but the standard of refusal was no penetration greater than 2 inches after 24 hammer blows. Granted this could mean that it could go deeper as the correct answer states BUT it didn't meet the point of "refusal" as explained in the first paragraph.
The only explanation I can come up with is a tic-tac....it is labeled as having 0 grams of sugar but it's main ingredient is sugar. Since the USDA (or the agency in charge of nutritional value) has determined that if a serving has less than a certain amount of sugar it can be labeled as "sugar-free".
Translating this back to the question: Da Ponte's bridge is like a tic-tac. It meets the standard of refusal even though it does not meet the actual definition of refusal.
Something along those lines. If anyone can explain this to be I'll appreciate it.
Thanks

[patrice.antoine]

BUMP, can an instructor please explain this question? Thanks in advance!

[samjcg]

bump need some answers to this question.
anyone?

[endless_sekai]

I am not an instructor, but I hope I can help clarify if perhaps only a little bit.

An easy way to approach this problem is process of elimination and remembering the goals of the inference question type. That is, trying to pick an answer that is the most provable/likely/supported by the given scenario. With that being said, I will go through each answer and eliminate it and give a small explanation as to why.

(A) is wrong, because in the passage there is no implication that the point of refusal in the example of the Rialto bridge was not safe. That is, if you were to have selected this answer, you had chosen an answer that wasn't provable given the information presented in the scenario.

(B) is wrong, similarly to A because at no point in the passage is there information that the standard of refusal was adequate or inadequate to provide safety. Thus again, you would need information not contained in the passage to justify this answer. Hence, why it is not correct.

(C) is wrong, like the previous 2 because you would need further information not provided by the passage for this answer to be correct.

(D) is wrong because seems to be contradictory with a statement made in the early part of the paragraph, moreover it would require further outside information to justify this answer.

Thus, we are only left with answer (E) as the correct answer.
Moreover, on inspection (E) seems to definitely be provable/supportable based on the info in the passage that the builder had met the contemporary standard of refusal by driving the pillings into the ground until they stopped moving a distance greater than 2 inches after 24 hammer blows. This seems to indicate that if the builder after he had met this point had struck another 24 hammer blows that the pillings would have been driven deeper, but not greater than 2 inches. Essentially, the idea is he could have met the standard of contemporary standard refusal, but still driven it deeper if he kept on hitting with the hammer after meeting that point.

Some of you have mentioned it does seem like there is a bit of inconsistency between the earlier definition of "refusal" and the definition of "refusal" for the Rialto Bridge. I think the easiest way to sort of working around this is that the 2nd definition doesn't really conflict with the first because technically the broad definition of "refusal" had been met. That is, the piling would not (refused to) be driven any deeper (which is essentially the essence of the first definition) than 2 inches from 24 hammer blows. All the latter definition is doing is adding a standard or qualification, but still meets the essential elements of the first definition.


Alternatively you can think of it like this, the first definition never really points what standard is the measure for when refusal is met. That is, it just says refusal is when it is at the point that it refused to be driven any deeper. But the question is, by what standard is that point measured? In that sense the 2nd definition doesn't conflict with the first because it is points out at least one of the measures used as a standard for refusal.

[SecondWind180]

We have two standards of refusal:

Prior to 1700 Standard (PS)
-"Refusal" (notice it's in quotes in the stimulus) is met when "the point at which they (pilings) refused to go any deeper."
-It's absolute. Basically, as deep as you can get it

Contemporary Standard (CS)
-Refusal has been met when "additional penetration into the ground was no greater than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows."
-He was a pansy, he stopped short of the PS standard
-He could keep hitting it and make it go deeper.

The stimulus says that the Rialto Bridge was built prior to 1700, YET used the CS. We know that the Rialto Bridge is an exception because of the 1588 inquiry that determined that Antonio Da Ponte used CS. So when Antonio Da Ponte was driving the pilings for the Rialto Bridge, he stopped when he no longer was getting 2 inches of depth out of twenty-four hammer blows because the CS of refusal had been met.

However, I could have came along and hammered it twenty-four times and gotten it to move another quarter inch deeper and therefore I would have driven it deeper even after the CS of refusal (the standard used on the Rialto Bridge) had been met.

(E) States that.

Let me know if you need further clarification.

[neliusw222]

1.the solidity of these type of bridges depends on how deep the pilings are driven
2.prior to 1700 they were driven to refusal (the point where they refused to go any deeper)
3.In 1588 Rialto was determined to have met the contemporary standard of refusal (point where additional penetration was not more than 2 inches after 24 hammer blows)

Question type: inference
Prephrase: Rialto bridge may or may not have meet refusal but for sure it did meet contemporary refusal

A. Safety is not mentioned anywhere
B.Similar to A
C.We are not told about other builders of Da Ponte's day.If anything he met the contemporary standard which means his standard of refusal was acceptable by builders of his day.
D. we do not know about any other bridges except Rialto
E.It is possible...I feel that this answer would have been completely wrong had it said with certainty that the pilings would have been driven deeper