LSAT 113 – Section 2 – Question 02

LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 02

June 2002

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:37

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT113 S2 Q02
+LR
Inference +Inf
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
2%
150
B
7%
154
C
8%
157
D
2%
150
E
80%
160
126
140
154
 +Easier 147.106 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

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.

Summary
The solidity of bridge piers is based mainly on the depth of the pilings. Before 1700, pilings were driven to “refusal,” which is the point at which the piling don’t go any deeper.
The Rialto Bridge’s pilings met the “contemporary standard for refusal” as of 1588. According to this standard, the pilings were driven into the ground until additional penetration into the ground was not greater than two inches after 24 hammer blows.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
There’s no clear conclusion to anticipate. But notice that there’s a difference between “refusal” and the “contemporary standard for refusal” in 1588. The definition of “refusal” involves pilings that can’t go any deeper. But the “contemporary standard for refusal” in 1588 allowed for the pilings to go deeper — just not deeper than two inches per 24 hammer blows.

A
The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings.
We don’t know what pilings are safe or unsafe. We know that solidity depends on pilings, but we have no basis to say that the depth at which the Rialto pilings were driven was safe or unsafe.
B
The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge.
We don’t know what depth of pilings is safe or unsafe. We know that solidity depends on pilings, but we have no basis to say that the contemporary standard of refusal was safe or unsafe.
C
Da Ponte’s standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge builders of his day.
We don’t know the standard that Da Ponte used. We know that his pilings met the standard for refusal as of 1588, but we don’t know whether Da Ponte used this standard or whether his standard was more or less strict than anyone else’s.
D
After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of refusal.
We don’t know whether there were any bridges built to the point of refusal after 1588. Maybe there were some driven to the point of refusal in 1589; we have no idea.
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.
This is supported by the last sentence. The contemporary standard of refusal still allowed the pilings to be driven deeper — just not more than 2 inches deeper per 24 hammer blows. But, for example, the pilings might have been driven 1 inch deeper after 24 hammer blows, or even just 1 millimeter deeper.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply