Practice GMAT Critical Reasoning Question

Return to the list of practice GMAT critical reasoning questions.

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.

Correct Answer: B

The conclusion of the stimulus is: "regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage".

Since the bridge "should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage," the author implies that the bridge is currently safe but should be reinforced to prepare for future changes in usage.
Two reasons are given for reinforcing: (1) "updated architectural norms" (2) "to meet anticipated increases in usage." Since the changes must be made for these two reasons, we can conclude that the original standards did not anticipate these two reasons/factors.
This answer states that the bridge still "will not be safe." The passage never states or implies that the bridge will not be safe. In fact, the words "to meet" seem to imply that the bridge will be safe with the changes.
The new architectural norms advocate the addition of supplemental reinforcements for the Watergate Bridge "to meet anticipated increases in demand." We cannot conclude that the historic regulations are faulty or that the situation with the Watergate Bridge mirrors that of every other bridge (i.e., since not every bridge is like the Watergate in its "anticipated increases in usage," we cannot conclude that every bridge needs the same reinforcements as the Watergate does).
The action should be undertaken because it is advised by regulators and is consistent with current design theory. The bridge was originally constructed "consistent with best-practices at the time" and the new reinforcements will help "meet anticipated increases in usage." The stimulus gives no indication that current best-practices should be abandoned simply because it is impossible to predict future theory.

Return to the list of practice GMAT critical reasoning questions.