LSAT 143 – Section 1 – Question 23
LSAT 143 - Section 1 - Question 23
June 2015You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:16
This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds
| Question QuickView |
Type | Tags | Answer Choices |
Curve | Question Difficulty |
Psg/Game/S Difficulty |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT143 S1 Q23 |
+LR
| Sufficient assumption +SA Link Assumption +LinkA Value Judgment +ValJudg Analogy +An | A
2%
154
B
25%
160
C
70%
165
D
2%
155
E
1%
158
|
146 155 165 |
+Harder | 148.401 +SubsectionMedium |
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.
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.
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.
A
The gates could be made larger, yet irresponsible drivers might still be able to go around them onto the tracks.
(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 a responsibility to take some measures to ensure their own safety.
(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 of companies are disregarded by capable adults, the adults are fully responsible for any resulting accidents.
(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 not involved in accidents resulting from drivers going around the gates.
(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 to promote public safety is not unlimited.
(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.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 143 Explanations
Section 1 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 2 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 4 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.