|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 262
|
The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends [#permalink]
 19 Sep 2012, 03:19
Question Stats:
67% (01:53) correct
32% (01:21) wrong based on 3 sessions
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. Which one of the following can properly be inferred from the passage? A) The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings. b) The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge. c) Da Ponte’s standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge builders of his day. d) After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of refusal. 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.
_________________
First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html
Last edited by getgyan on 19 Sep 2012, 23:24, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 106
Location: United Kingdom
WE: Account Management (Other)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[1] , given: 34
|
Re: The solidity of bridge piers built on [#permalink]
19 Sep 2012, 07:47
1
This post received
KUDOS
‘Inferred’ can easily be mistaken for ‘is possible’, but should be treated as a ‘conclussion’ in the GMAT sense – it needs to be proven from the facts in the argument, and without any external help. POE A – The argument makes no mention of safety, therefore this is incorrect. Eliminate B – Why do they keep banging on about the safety of the bridge? Geez. Eliminate. C – Nope, the argument doesn’t say that. It says that Da Ponte met the standard. Eliminate. D – It doesn’t say anywhere that this is the case. Presumably this practice finished in 1700 but no data is supplied in regards to the number of bridges built between 1588 and 1700. Eliminate. E – Last man standing so let’s check it. Could the pilings be driven deeper? Yes, it is POSSIBLE they could have as they have already gone in 2 inches. That’s not to say that the builders would continue hammering, but it’s possible. So I pick E. What’s the OA? B.
_________________
In the study cave!
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSchool Thread Master
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
15
[1] , given: 11
|
Re: The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends [#permalink]
24 Sep 2012, 22:34
1
This post received
KUDOS
getgyan wrote: 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. Which one of the following can properly be inferred from the passage?
. A) The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings - against the argument - Eliminateb) The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge - links standard of refusal to safety - OOSc) Da Ponte’s standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge builders of his day - He met all the standard requirementsd) After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of refusal- Out of scope again .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 exactly what is inferred if you read the last two lines carefully.
_________________
You want something, go get it . Period !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 262
|
Re: The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends [#permalink]
24 Sep 2012, 22:51
+1 E Inference type a) The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings. (We cannot conclude that, maybe they were safe, eliminate)b) The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge. (Again, we can’t conclude that, eliminate)c) Da Ponte’s standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge builders of his day. (Cannot be inferred as no info is given, eliminate)d) After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of refusal. (Cannot be inferred as no info is given, eliminate)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. (Yes it is always possible(hypothetically) but not required, this is our best answer) 
_________________
First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends
[#permalink]
24 Sep 2012, 22:51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
