Any driver involved in an accident leading to personal injury or

Question

Any driver involved in an accident leading to personal injury or property damage exceeding $500 is legally required to report the accident to the department of motor vehicles, unless the driver is incapable of doing so. Ted is not required to report the accident in which he was involved as a driver.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

(A) If Ted is incapable of reporting the accident, then the accident did not lead to property damage exceeding $500

(B) If Ted's car was damaged in excess of $500 in the accident, then he is incapable of reporting the accident tot he department of motor vehicles

(C) Someone other than Ted is legally required to report the accident to the department of motor vehicles

(D) If Ted is incapable of reporting the accident to the department of motor vehicles, then he was injured in the accident

(E) Either no one was injured in the accident or the accident did not lead to property damage exceeding $500

talwarmeister · Accepted Answer

Aah a classic conflict and a clever question. Between B & E I choose B because:

For inference: the answer choice must be true.
The problem with option E:

The premise says “ Any driver involved in an accident leading to personal injury or property damage exceeding $500 is legally required to report the accident to the department of motor vehicles, unless the driver is incapable of doing so.”

It means that if damage is than 500$ AND no one was inured only then Ted is not require to report the accident. Both must be true. But option E with the use OR implies the opposite.

Posted from my mobile device

hykhan · Answer

There shouldn’t be any ambiguity here. In Inference questions, one must use only what is provided in the stem, and apply no personal assumption

Option E suggests that one or the other did NOT happen. Either nobody was injured OR no damage > $500. But what if damage was less than $500 but someone was injured and is now incapable of reporting it due to their injury? The statement doesn’t rule out that either occurred, only that one of either didn’t occur.

Let’s say you’re having difficulty coming to terms with why E is wrong, in this case lets evaluate B.

option B clearly defines a scenario in which if *A* occurred (damage > 500) then in order for Ted to NOT be required to report the accident, *B* must have happened (he’s incapable of reporting it, for whatever reason. It doesn’t matter what the reason is)

Because B is 100% correct using the information that the question stem has provided, it is the correct answer.

Posted from my mobile device

lalitagarwal · Answer

The statement says, "Ted is not REQUIRED to report the accident...."
The premise states "Any driver is legally required to report the accident if it has caused personal/property damage >$500, unless the driver is incapable of doing so"

It doesn't seem to justify the fact that damage >$500 would mean a driver would be incapable of reporting the damage.

Experts please confirm if the logic is flawed!

Request OE please

MBAB123 · Answer

The problem with E is that it does not consider the following situation -

"It is possible that people were injured or that property damage exceeded $500, but as Ted is incapable of reporting the accident, he wasn't required to do so"

I picked E as well, but now I realise why B is the correct choice. This question really shows the importance of precise reading, good one!

Bhavika468 · Answer

Please explain why B and not E. Thanks

TheGraceful · Answer

I too picked E only to be preoven wrong. Indeed option 'B" is correct answer choice here.

Here we go.

Premise : Any driver involved in an accident leading to personal injury or property damage exceeding $500 is legally required to report the accident to the department of motor vehicles, unless the driver is incapable of doing so. 
 Premise : Ted is not required to report the accident in which he was involved as a driver.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?  Which of the following MUST BE TRUE..?
 
(A) If Ted is incapable of reporting the accident, then the accident did not lead to property damage exceeding $500
 ==> NOT mentioned or supported by premises.   Eliminate this answer choice.

(B) If Ted's car was damaged in excess of $500 in the accident, then he is incapable of reporting the accident to the department of motor vehicles
 ==> Yes, if no one is injured OR if there is no damage of 'property' (means does NOT exceed $500) then driver can NOT report the incident to DMV. 
And for sure, premise(s) does NOT talk of reporting to DMV for any sort of car damage.    Let's Hold on with this option.

(C) Someone other than Ted is legally required to report the accident to the department of motor vehicles
 ===>Why? Premise(s) Does NOT conclusively say that driver(Ted) is injured.   Eliminate this answer choice.

(D) If Ted is incapable of reporting the accident to the department of motor vehicles, then he was injured in the accident
 ==> No. Premise(s) Does NOT conclusively say that driver(Ted) is injured.   Eliminate this answer choice.

(E) Either no one was injured in the accident or the accident did not lead to property damage exceeding $500 
 ==> Yes there is possibility of this .   Let's hold on to this.

Now we have to eliminate one option from the remaining two.
Between B and E:

Option E: 
Premise(s) Does NOT conclusively say that driver(Ted) is NOT injured nor it conclusively says driver is injured. Definitely NOT a MUST TRUE. 
Premise(s) Does NOT conclusively say that property is damaged NOR does it say cost of damage(if happened) is less than $500.  Definitely NOT a MUST TRUE. 
 Although this looked tempting, its a strong contender for elimination on a MUST BE TRUE question.   Eliminate this answer choice.

Since we have eliminated 4 of the options,   whatever left is our answer ( no matter, how much we like or understand it ).

Anyways, here is some justification for option B after eliminating E.

Option B: If Ted's car was damaged in excess of $500 in the accident, then he is incapable of reporting the accident to the department of motor vehicles
 This also does NOT mention conclusively if driver is injured (or NOT), neither talks about property damage (and cost exceeding $500). 
however, the condition mentioned here that reporting car damage is required is conclusively unsupported by premises and that's what answer choice is saying..  And hence this is a MUST BE TRUE condition.

Hope this helps.

sssanskaar · Answer

Not to dishearten certain people, but if you are able to think extremely literally (which is required in CR), you will be able to solve this question in under 3 mins without any confusion.

At first glance only, you can omit options A, C, and D.

Coming to B and D.

Quote:

Any driver involved in an accident leading to personal injury or property damage exceeding $500 is legally required to report the accident to the department of motor vehicles, unless the driver is incapable of doing so. Ted is not required to report the accident in which he was involved as a driver.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

B: If Ted's car was damaged in excess of $500 in the accident, then he is incapable of reporting the accident to the department of motor vehicles.

When I read this, I immediately recognised this as the correct answer. Think about this for a second.

Cause: if an accident occurs with damage exceeding $500
Effect: driver is legally required to report IF HE/SHE IS CAPABLE.

Situation: The driver is not required to report the accident.

Now what can we infer from this.?

1. Either the accident didn't result in damages costing more than $500, OR
2. The accident DID result in damages costing more than $500 but Ted is INCAPABLE of reporting the same.

Option B just states the second point and hence is the perfectly CORRECT ANSWER.

Let's tackle option E as well for the sake of our understanding:

E:Either no one was injured in the accident or the accident did not lead to property damage exceeding $500

This option skips a very important third condition:
Either of (personal injury or property damage exceeding $500 happened), AND/BUT Ted is incapable of reporting the accident.

Hence, this option E is clearly an incorrect answer.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

The passage indicates that there are two situations in which a driver is may not be required to report an accident.

- The accident does not lead to personal injury or property damage exceeding $500.

- The the driver is incapable of doing so.

Then, the passage says, "Ted is not required to report the accident in which he was involved as a driver."

(E) says, "Either no one was injured in the accident or the accident did not lead to property damage exceeding $500."

Notice that it's not the case that either one of those things must be true since it's possible that Ted is not required to report the accident because he "is incapable of doing so."

Maria240895chile · Answer

"The accident DID result in damages costing more than $500 but Ted is INCAPABLE of reporting the same."

if the accident did result in damages costing more than 500, then he should be require to report, but the premise says that he is not. 
there are two scenarios if  ted is not required to report 
1.- there were no injured and no damage 
2.- there were no injured and damage below 500

so B says:   If Ted's car was damaged in excess of $500 in the accident, then he is incapable of reporting the accident to the department of motor vehicles.

if the car was damaged over 500, there could be injuries (ted is incapable) or no injuries (ted is capable). I feel we can't assume the first scenario w/o considering the second one.

please help

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

There's another scenario in which he is not required to report.

the driver is incapable of doing so

Here's what's going on.

The passage says the following:

Ted is not required to report the accident in which he was involved as a driver.

There are only two ways in which that could be the case.

The accident did NOT lead to personal injury or property damage exceeding $500.

Ted is incapable of reporting the accident.

So, if Ted is not required, then either one of the above must be the case.

Thus, as choice (B) says, if Ted's car was damaged in excess of $500, then he is incapable of reporting the accident.

After all, if If Ted's car was damaged in excess of $500 and he were NOT incapable of reporting the accident, then he would be required to report it.

samarpan.g28 · Answer

The reasons the driver should not report legally are:
1. The property damage is not exceeding $500 or,
2. The driver is incapable of reporting, we can say they are injured.
Option (B) says  "Ted's car was damaged in excess of $500 in the accident" , which means Ted is injured to report as per 2 in the above reasons. The same is also mentioned in the second part  "then he is incapable of reporting the accident tot he department of motor vehicles" . Option (B) is correct.

Any driver involved in an accident leading to personal injury or

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Any driver involved in an accident leading to personal injury or

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards