QUESTION TYPE: Must be True
- The depth of pilings determines how solid a bridge is.
- Pilings used to be driven in to the point of “refusal”, where they wouldn’t go any deeper.
- The Rialto Bridge met the standard for refusal. 24 hammer blows would drive the pilings in by less than 2 inches.
ANALYSIS: We don’t know anything about how safe or unsafe the standard of refusal was.
We can conclude that the pilings could have gone deeper. The 24 hammer blows were still driving in the pilings, just not by much.
- Presumably the standard of the time was fairly safe. We have no evidence it wasn’t, and the Rialto Bridge met the standard.
- This is exactly the same as A. We have no evidence the standard was unsafe. People probably would have stopped using the standard if it was unsafe.
- If Da Ponte met the contemporary standard then that means he met the standard of his time.
- Huh? The stimulus clearly state that all bridges built before 1700 had pilings driven to refusal. Presumably some bridges were built during 1588-1700.
- CORRECT. 24 hammer blows drove the pilings in by less than two inches. That isn’t much, but they were still being driven in.
The standard of refusal determined that they were “deep enough”, but the pilings could have gone deeper.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly