Self-study
Editorial: The gates at most railroad crossings, while they give clear warning of oncoming trains, are not large enough to prevent automobile drivers from going around them onto the tracks. ████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ █ █████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ███ █ ████████ ██████ ██ █ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ███████
Summary
The author concludes that accidents that result from cars going around railroad crossing gates are not the fault of the railroad company. This is because the drivers of those cars are adults who should know that they shouldn’t go around railroad crossing gates.
Note that it’s important to translate the conclusion — “this is a mistake” — into “the railroad company is not (at all) at fault.” If you don’t realize that the conclusion is asserting that the railroad company is 0% at fault, you’ll struggle with this question.
Missing Connection
We’re trying to prove that the railroad company is not at fault — not even partially at fault. But the premise doesn’t establish anything about who is or isn’t at fault. So, at a minimum, we want an answer that mentions something about fault.
Moreover, the answer, in connection with the premises, must establish that the railroad company bears no fault at all. If the answer allows the railroad company to possibly bear partial fault, it’s not correct.
Here’s an example answer that could make the argument valid:
If an accident could have been avoided by an adult who should know better than to act in a way that led to the accident, then nobody else is at fault except the adult.
23.
The editorial's conclusion follows logically ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
a
The gates could ██ ████ ███████ ███ █████████████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ███████
(A) doesn’t provide any way to assign fault/blame/responsibility away from the railroad company. Are railroad companies at fault for irresponsible drivers going onto the tracks? Maybe; we don’t know.
b
Capable adults have █ ██████████████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ███ ███████
(B) might support a claim that the adult drivers who go around railroad crossing gates bear some responsibility for their actions. But (B) doesn’t completely absolve railroad companies from responsibility. Under (B), railroad companies might still be partially at fault.
c
When the warnings ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████
(C) establishes that the adults who go around railroad crossing gates, which we know give warnings about trains, bear “full” responsibility for resulting accidents. If the adults are fully responsible, then the railroad company bears no responsibility.
d
Small children are ███ ████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████
(D) doesn’t provide any way to assign fault/blame/responsibility away from the railroad company. Are railroad companies at fault for irresponsible drivers going onto the tracks? Maybe; we don’t know.
e
Any company's responsibility ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████
(E) limits the extent of a railroad company’s responsibility to promote public safety. But it doesn’t guarantee, with respect to the issue of people going around gates at railroad crossing, that railroad companies aren’t at fault for resulting accidents.