UB001 wrote:
The strength of a suspension bridge rests in part on how deep the towers are anchored into the ground. During the first wave of suspension bridge construction, consistent with best-practices at the time, regulations required engineers to drill holes for the towers such that the portion of the tower below ground accounted for at least half of the height of the tower. After conducting an inspection into the depth of the holes drilled for the towers of the Watergate Bridge, constructed over 50 years ago during the first wave of suspension bridge construction, regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage.
Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
A) In light of current architectural theory, the Watergate Bridge should be closed until reinforcements can be added.
B) The original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory.
C) Even with the implementation of the reinforcements advocated by the new architectural norms, the bridge will still not be safe.
D) In light of the regulators’ findings, every suspension bridge built during the first wave of construction must be updated to provide additional strength and carrying capacity.
E) The action advocated by current architectural theory should not be undertaken since there is no evidence to guarantee that the reinforcements will be adequate or advisable in light of future architectural research.
Regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage.
Which option will support that fact??
A) In light of current architectural theory, the Watergate Bridge should be closed until reinforcements can be added.
This is too extreme for this argument.
B) The original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory.
Correct Answer.C) Even with the implementation of the reinforcements advocated by the new architectural norms, the bridge will still not be safe.
Will no be safe, not mentioned anywhere
D) In light of the regulators’ findings, every suspension bridge built during the first wave of construction must be updated to provide additional strength and carrying capacity.
We need not talk about other bridges, why will this bridge be improved, we need to discuss on this.
E) The action advocated by current architectural theory should not be undertaken since there is no evidence to guarantee that the reinforcements will be adequate or advisable in light of future architectural research
This is going against the argument, the whole purpose of this argument was to make the enforcement, why to question that premise?