LSAT Explanation PT 37, S2, Q2: The solidity of bridge piers built

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following can properly be inferred from the passage? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Must Be True question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Must Be True (MBT), which means we need to find an answer choice that can be properly inferred from the information provided in the passage.

Let's first summarize the passage: The solidity of bridge piers depends on the depth of the pilings. Before 1700, pilings were driven to "refusal," meaning they could not go any deeper. In an inquiry about the Rialto Bridge in Venice, it was found that its builder, Antonio Da Ponte, met the contemporary standard for refusal, which was driving pilings until additional penetration was no greater than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows.

Now let's analyze the answer choices:

a) The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings.

We cannot infer this from the passage. The passage only states that Da Ponte met the contemporary standard for refusal, but it doesn't provide information about the safety of the pilings.

b) The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge.

The passage doesn't provide enough information to make this judgment. We only know that the standard of refusal was used, but we don't know if it was sufficient or not for ensuring safety.

c) Da Ponte's standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge builders of his day.

This answer choice contradicts the information in the passage, which states that Da Ponte met the contemporary standard for refusal. This means that his standard was not less strict than that of other bridge builders.

d) After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of refusal.

The passage only discusses bridges built prior to 1700 and doesn't provide any information about bridges built after 1588. Therefore, we cannot infer this statement from the passage.

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 the correct answer. The passage states that the standard of refusal was met when "additional penetration into the ground was no greater than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows." This implies that it is possible for the pilings to be driven deeper with more hammer blows, even after meeting the standard of refusal.

In conclusion, the correct answer choice is (e), as it can be properly inferred from the information provided in the passage.