PrepTest 143, Section 1, Question 23
Editorial: The gates at most railroad crossings, while(73 more words not shown)
The editorial's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AThe gates could(17 more words not shown)
- BCapable adults have(11 more words not shown)
- CWhen the warnings(16 more words not shown)
- DSmall children are(11 more words not shown)
- EAny company's responsibility(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A warning doesn't physically stop a driver. Does the railroad have to do both?
I can understand the editorial's position. A capable adult who sees a clear warning about an oncoming train should know not to drive around the gate. A small child near stairs is different: the child may need a barrier that actually prevents access. Still, responsibility could be shared. Saying the driver should know better doesn't yet establish that the railroad bears no part of the fault.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. We need to move from a capable adult disregarding a clear warning to the company being free of responsibility for the resulting accident. A rule assigning the adult full responsibility would make that connection.
Working the answers
- A
Larger gates might still be avoidable, but that doesn't decide who is responsible. A company could conceivably have an obligation to improve a barrier even if doing so wouldn't prevent every accident. A discusses what a driver could do, not whether the railroad bears any fault.
- B
Taking some safety measures isn't the same as bearing all responsibility for an accident. An adult might be obliged to wear a seat belt, for example, while another party still shares fault for a collision. B doesn't establish the editorial's complete rejection of the railroad's responsibility.
- CCorrect
The gates give clear warnings, and the drivers are capable adults who disregard them. C says adults in that situation are fully responsible for the resulting accidents. If responsibility rests fully with the adults, the railroad isn't partly at fault. The rule supplies the exact step the conclusion needs.
- D
A child could be a passenger in the car. That wouldn't change the stated fact that the driver is a capable adult. The editorial's comparison with a child near stairs concerns the decision-maker's ability to understand danger, not a requirement that no child could be injured.
- E
A limit on responsibility doesn't tell us where the limit falls. The railroad might have limited duties that still include making these gates larger. We need a rule settling responsibility in this particular warning-and-adult situation, not merely saying companies aren't responsible for everything.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.