by maryadkins Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:02 am
This is an inference question, so we'll take everything in the argument as true and infer based on that information. We know:
-ALL bridges built from 1950-1960 need rehab
-Some of these have faulty design
-None of the ones with faulty design are suspension bridges
-Some of the bridges that need rehab are not suspension bridges
We are looking for a statement that must be true based on these.
(A) is incorrect because we don't know anything about the suspension bridges that DO exist and what they need--we're just told that none of the faulty design bridges are suspension, and that some of the bridges are not suspension.
(B) is like (A)--it focuses on what we can conclude about suspension bridges. But again, all we're told about them is where they DON'T exist.
(C) is true based on the first two statements. If all bridges in the period need rehab, and if some of them are faulty, then some of them need rehab. All + Some (of the all) = Some
(D) is the opposite of what the argument tells us.
(E) is also the opposite of what the argument tells us. We know that none of the faulty design bridges are suspension bridges.