Q23: Editorial: The gates at most railroad crossings,

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Editorial: The gates at most railroad crossings…

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: It’s wrong to say that accidents at railroad crossings are the fault of railroad companies.

REASONING: The gates in front of the crossing warn drivers not to cross, but it’s possible to drive around the gates. Drivers are adults who should know better.

ANALYSIS: This question doesn’t use conditionals. For all it’s wordiness, it really only gives us a single fact that supports the conclusion: adults should know better. We can fill the gap by making a conditional statement between the fact and the conclusion.

Evidence: Adults should know better
Conclusion: Accidents aren’t railroad companies’ fault.

How to fill gap: should know better ➞ not companies fault

You probably already assumed that naturally. Getting this question right is about explicitly specifying what most people would already assume.

___________

This strengthens the idea that the companies aren’t to blame, but it doesn’t prove 100% that the companies aren’t at fault. Maybe there are other things they could do apart from making the gates larger.
This tells us what adults should do. The question is about whether railroad companies are also responsible.
CORRECT. We know that adults did ignore the warnings. So this answer lets us conclude that adults are fully responsible, and that railroad companies have zero responsibility.
Small children are irrelevant. Sure, it’d be sad if a child were injured. But that doesn’t tell us who is responsible: railroad companies or adults.
This tells us that there is an upper limit on company responsibility. But the question is about whether companies have any responsibility at all.