This is one that I have to face over and over, despite the fact that it appears perfectly obvious to me.
I do training. Now, for a training class, certain things MUST be covered. And in our situation, they are covered in a group setting, not one-on-one.
So, why do people assume that the length of the training is dependent, not on the materials that I'm covering, but the number of people in the group? Telling me, "Oh, you can cut the training time in half, I'm sure. We don't have many people in the class," makes me cry inside. I suppose that I could save a little time in group introductions, and maybe not have as many questions to field. But let's assume my training presentation was the equivalent of reciting the Gettysburg address. The length of time it takes to say it is not dependent on the number of people listening, is it?
I swear people believe that the training is done by approaching the person in the first seat, telling them everything they need to know, and then moving to the next person and repeating myself, until I've spoken to everyone in the room. That's the only way it makes sense that a group of five people would take half the time as a group of 10.
(Oh, and don't get me started on the "We don't need your 8 hour session on how to do this complex but vital process. Just give us an hour or so, because we only do that process twice a year," people. Would you want your doctor only to spend a few minutes in medical school learning about a complicated and life-threatening operation "because I don't do it very often"?)