Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 2

Incorrect. It's not noted that the inquiry was done because of safety concerns, and the bridge met the contemporary standard for refusal, so there's no indication that the pilings in the Rialto Bridge were unsafe.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the Rialto Bridge was unsafe. The inquiry could have been done because of a payment dispute.

Incorrect. It's noted that Da Ponte met the contemporary standard for refusal, suggesting that he had the same standard as other bridge builders of his day.

Incorrect. It's noted that prior to 1700, pilings were driven to refusal, and the Rialto Bridge was built in 1588, suggesting that bridges built between those times continued to use the refusal standard.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Relationship - Bridge solidity depends on how deep pilings are driven
Refusal - The point at which pilings refuse to go deeper
Pre-1700 - Pilings driven to refusal
Example - 1588 Rialto Bridge met the standard for refusal (no more than 2 inches of movement after 24 hammer blows)

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus is a bit all over the place, with a relationship established, a definition provided, a timeline, and an example. It's hard to know what, exactly, will lead to a correct answer! As such, it's more important to note these details and understand them.

That said, there is one thing that, based on some trends on the test, we can anticipate here. Frequently, when there is information that appears paradoxical or contradictory, it serves as an answer in a Must Be True question. We see this a lot in RC—when the author makes a concession to an opposing point, or agrees with something that seems to cut against their overall view, it tends to show up as a correct answer. Same in LR Must Be True questions—if the statements lead to an inference that is counterintuitive, that inference will frequently be the correct answer.

Here, the definition of "refusal" and its application to the Rialto Bridge is a bit counterintuitive. The word "refusal" suggests an absolute—the pilings "refuse" to be driven any deeper. However, the application of it to the Rialto Bridge situation suggests that the pilings could have been driven deeper—since the standard was moving no more than 2 inches after 24 hammer blows. Maybe they were still being driven 1 inch every 30 blows, but that counts as refusal. Since this is a counterintuitive inference, it's likely to show up as the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is very weak and reflects the counterintuitive inference we made. The contemporary standard for refusal in 1588 allows for some movement after the threshold is met, and so it's possible that the Rialto Bridge pilings could have been driven deeper.

Key Takeaway:
Counterintuitive inferences will very frequently be given as correct answers, as it's a great way to hide a correct answer. If you note something that seems weird or counterintuitive in a Must Be True stimulus, focus on that in your anticipation!