Editorial: The gates at most railroad

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   The gates could be made larger, yet irresponsible drivers might still be able to go around

   If the answer isn't providing a rule that allows us to derive the idea of "the railroad company is not at fault", then it won't serve our purposes of helping us to logically guarantee the conclusion. This answer is sort of suggesting that, "If a better solution still wouldn't totally eradicate the problem, then they're not at fault for the current solution", but we need all that spelled out.

   2%
2. B

   Too Weak26% picked this

   Capable adults have a responsibility to take some measures to ensure

   Again, this answer doesn't provide a "not at fault" rule, so it won't serve our purposes of helping us to logically guarantee the conclusion. This answer is still compatible with the notion that the railroad company is partly at fault. We would need to hear that "100% of the responsibly lies with the capable adult" to prove that the railroad company is 0% responsible.

   26%
3. C

   Correct68% picked this

   When the warnings of companies are disregarded by capable adults, the adults are fully responsible

   Why this is right

   By saying that an adult is fully responsible, we're achieving our goal of proving that the railroad company is 0% responsible (they are not even partly at fault). Can we trigger this rule? warning of company ? adult fully resp. disregarded by capable adult for any accidents Do we know in the case of these railroad accidents that the driver is a capable adult who is disregarding the warning of a company? Yes, our two premises were that the crossings "give clear warning" and that a licensed driver is a "capable adult". Since this rule establishes that the adult is fully responsible for an accident when it disregards those crossing gates, it proves that "claiming the railroad company is partly at fault is a mistake".

   Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   68%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Small children are not involved in accidents resulting from drivers going

   If the answer isn't providing a rule that allows us to derive the idea of "the railroad company is not at fault", then it won't serve our purposes of helping us to logically guarantee the conclusion. This answer doesn't have any language about who is at fault / who is responsible.

   2%
5. E

   Too Weak / Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Any company's responsibility to promote public safety is

   This answer just says, "There is at least some limit on the railroad company's responsibility to promote public safety". But this answer doesn't have any wording regarding who is responsible / at fault, so we can't use it to derive our conclusion. And this answer is perfectly compatible with the notion that the railroad company is still partly at fault in these railroad crossing accidents.

   2%