All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  The strength of a suspension bridge rests in ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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.
Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
The strength of a suspension bridge rests in part on how deep the towe...
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".
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. 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).
E. 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.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
The strength of a suspension bridge rests in part on how deep the towe...
Support for Option B:

Original Regulations:
- The original regulations required engineers to anchor suspension bridge towers with a portion below ground at least half of the height of the tower.
- This standard was based on best practices at the time of construction.

Failure to Anticipate Future Changes:
- The regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory now advise for reinforcements to meet anticipated increases in usage.
- This suggests that the original regulations did not foresee the future changes in demand or architectural theory.

Conclusion:
- Based on the information provided, it is strongly supported that the original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory.
- Therefore, Option B is the most strongly supported conclusion.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells’ potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry’s concern for the purity of the wells’ oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil contaminated water.The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth’s surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well’s location was based on a poor understanding of the area’s subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area’s groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells’ potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry’s concern for the purity of the wells’ oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil contaminated water.The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth’s surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well’s location was based on a poor understanding of the area’s subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area’s groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.The author’s attitude regarding oil well drilling regulations can most accurately be described as

The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells’ potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry’s concern for the purity of the wells’ oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil contaminated water.The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth’s surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well’s location was based on a poor understanding of the area’s subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area’s groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.The passage states which one of the following about underground oil reservoirs?

The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells’ potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry’s concern for the purity of the wells’ oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil contaminated water.The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth’s surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well’s location was based on a poor understanding of the area’s subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area’s groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.The author uses the phrase “the hazards of insufficient knowledge” primarily in order to refer to the risks resulting from

Despite radical differences in what limbs do and what they look like, the underlying blueprint of all limbs in land based animals, whether those limbs are wings in birds, flippers in penguins, or hands in humans, is the same - one bone, the humerus in the arm or the femur in the leg, articulates with two bones, which attach to a series of small blobs, which connect with the fingers or toes. Want to make a bat wing? Make the fingers really long. Want to make a horse? Elongate the middle fingers and toes and lose the outer ones. The differences between creatures lie in differences in the shapes and sizes of the bones and the numbers of blobs, fingers, and toes.In the 1950s and 1960s a number of biologists, including Edgar Zwilling and John Saunders, did extraordinarily creative experiments on chicken eggs to understand how skeletal structure of limbs forms and uncovered some of the key mechanisms that build limbs that have the same architecture but are as different as bird wings, lizards webbings, and human hands . They discovered that two little patches of tissue essentially control the development of the pattern of bones inside limbs. These patches of tissue were named the zone of polarizing activity (ZP

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about 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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for 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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of 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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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.Q. 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 is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup