Editorial: The gates at most railroad crossings, while they give clear warning of oncoming trains, are not large enou...

Annie on October 21, 2019

@manvir,

This question is structured in a funny way as it doesn't have the usual premise and conclusion language that we're used to seeing on the test. Therefore, you want to reorganize the question into a set up you're used to. By switching around the sentences you can get:

Premise: A licensed driver is a capable adult who should know better
Conclusion: Railroad companies are not responsible for the car accidents that occur at railroad crossings (this conclusion is based on the "this is a mistake" phrase)

Now, you're looked for another premise which needs to be assumed to connect the first premise and the conclusion.

(A) is incorrect. It shows a way in which railroad companies can improve their safety measures, but it does not get to the conclusion that railroad companies are never at fault for the accidents

(B) is incorrect. While it helps indicate that railroad companies may not always be responsible for accidents, it does not get to the final conclusion that railroad companies are never at fault. The fact that drivers may be partly responsible for accidents, does not mean that railroad companies are not also partly at fault.

(C) is correct. This answer is the only one which puts all of the blame on someone other than the railroad companies. If drivers are capable and they ignore warnings, then they are fully responsible, meaning the railroads are not responsible.

(D) is incorrect. This question is about the adults and railroad companies, not the children.

(E) is incorrect. This answer choice is just saying that a company's responsibility to promote safety is limited. As the conclusion here is that the railroad companies have no responsibility, this answer choice doesn't quite reach the mark.