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.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly