Compaction acceptance is based on achieving specifiedin-place dry density(relative compaction) at an acceptable moisture range. If the material is alreadynear optimum moisture, failure to meet density typically points toinsufficient compactive effort,inadequate number of passes,improper equipment, orexcessive lift thickness(300 mm can be too thick for some sub-base and equipment combinations). Standard compaction theory shows that near OMC, soils should densify efficiently; if density is still low, the first corrective action is toincrease compactive effortand verify results with another field density test. Adding water when already near OMC may push moisture above optimum and can reduce achievable dry density.
Continuing with base placement would lock in a nonconforming layer, and stripping/importing new material is a last-resort remedy after reasonable rework attempts. Therefore, the best immediate corrective action is to re-compact and retest, adjusting lift thickness/passes as needed to meet specification.

Selecting a drawing scale is an engineering graphics task: the plan must fit within the sheet limits after allowing for borders, title block, notes, dimensions, and details. Engineering drawing practice treats scale as a proportional reduction ratio that preserves geometric similarity between the real object and the drawing. A 20 m × 30 m footprint equals 20,000 mm × 30,000 mm. At 1:50, the plotted size is 400 mm × 600 mm, which fits comfortably on a 648 mm × 917 mm sheet with room for margins and annotations. At 1:25, the plotted size becomes 800 mm × 1,200 mm, which exceeds the sheet. At 1:5, it is far too large; at 1:250, it is very small (80 mm × 120 mm), reducing readability for foundations that typically require clear dimensioning of footings, piles, grade beams, and notes. Therefore, 1:50 provides the best balance of fit and legibility for a C1 sheet, makingOption Cthe best scale choice.

Pile sizing on a foundation plan is determined by thepile schedule/legendand callouts that specify different pile types or diameters (and sometimes lengths/capacities) used in different locations to suit varying loads or subsurface conditions. Reviewing a foundation plan for "how many pile sizes" means identifying the distinct pile designations listed in the schedule (e.g., P1, P2, P3, P4), each corresponding to a different concrete pile size/specification. Engineering drawing practice requires reading the schedule and matching symbols/marks to their definitions to count unique sizes, not simply counting total piles on the plan. In the provided drawing, the pile schedule indicatesfourdistinct pile sizes/designations, so the project requiresfourdifferent sizes of concrete piles.

At-grade intersection design is governed by how vehicle paths interact-i.e., the fundamentalconflict types and maneuver classes that must be accommodated by geometry, channelization, and traffic control. AASHTO' s intersection chapter explicitly categorizes vehicular conflict points and illustrates them using the maneuver typesdiverging, merging, and crossing, and it addresses how turning movements create and interact with these conflicts within the functional area of intersections.
In addition, AASHTO describesweavingas the condition where one-way traffic streams cross bymerging and divergingmaneuvers-another key operational behavior that affects design and level of service.
Putting these together, the five maneuvers a technologist must consider in intersection design arediverging, merging, weaving, crossing, and turning, which corresponds exactly toOption B.