Passage Summary: The editorial argues that railroad companies shouldn't be blamed when drivers sneak around crossing gates. Even though the gates don't physically stop a car, the author thinks grown-ups should know better than to drive onto tracks when a warning is present.

Conclusion: It is incorrect to claim that railroad companies are even partially responsible for accidents involving drivers who bypass crossing gates.

Reasoning: While railroad gates do not physically prevent cars from entering the tracks, drivers are capable adults who should be held responsible for their own actions, unlike small children who require total physical barriers.

Analysis: This is a Sufficient Assumption question where the author relies on an analogy between children and adults to assign moral responsibility. The argument assumes that if a warning is provided to a 'capable adult,' the provider of that warning has fulfilled its duty and cannot be held liable for the adult's failure to comply. To guarantee the conclusion, look for an answer that explicitly states that an entity is not responsible for accidents if the person involved was a capable adult who ignored a clear warning.