PrepTest 143

Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish how blame is assigned for any ensuing accident, so it can't justify the conclusion here.

Incorrect. This answer might allow a conclusion that capable adults are responsible for the accident, but it doesn't establish that the railroad companies aren't at least partially responsible for them—the crux of the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Railroad gates give clear warnings, but it's possible to drive past them. Drivers are adults, though, so the railroad company isn't even partially liable for an accident from a car that drives onto the tracks.

Answer Anticipation:
For a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question, we need to find an answer that guarantees the validity of the conclusion without a doubt. That means we need a direct connection between the premises and that conclusion.

So here, we stripped a lot of the extraneous information out of the stimulus. The background info sets up the situation, so that's relevant. The opposing point, however, is only relevant in that we need to understand it to know what the Editorial means in saying it's mistaken.

Here, we rephrased the conclusion to what the Editorial means, since it makes heavy reference to the opposing point. In saying that it's wrong to claim the railroad companies are partly at fault for any accidents, the Editorial is committed to believing that the railroad companies aren't partly at fault.

Finally, we have the end of the argument. The analogy drawn to children and gates at stairs is only relevant in that it distinguishes between that situation and adults—adults who are capable and should know better than driving on the tracks. That piece of the analogy is the driving force behind the Editorial's conclusion, and it's what needs to be connected to that conclusion.

So we should look for an answer that says something to the effect of:

If a person is a capable adult who is clearly warned of danger but engages in dangerous activity anyway, someone who didn't fully prevent that activity isn't to blame for any ensuing accident.

A bit wordy, so we expect the correct answer to streamline it a bit, but with that in mind, we should have a full view of what a correct answer should say!

Answer Explanation:
This is a much more elegant phrasing of our anticipation! The gates give "clear warning" of oncoming train traffic, and licensed drivers are "capable adults." This answer establishes, then, that the drivers are "fully responsible" for any ensuing accident—leaving to blame for the railroad companies, thus justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Responsibility is one of those repeated concepts on the LSAT, like lying and motivation. Knowing that the definition of it—who's responsible, what creates blame—is generally left open by the stimulus and then defined in some way by the correct answer can help you power through these questions a bit faster, and more easily reach your anticipation.

Incorrect. Unless those children are driving the cars, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. While this answer establishes that there are dangers a company could prevent that they're not responsible for, it doesn't necessarily apply to this specific case, so we can't use it to fully justify the conclusion.