I’m happy to help. As always, let’s start with the question stem. We are looking for an answer that can be properly inferred from the statements above.
We know that ANY driver involved in an accident leading to injury OR damage exceeding 500 is legally required to report to the DMV, unless the driver is incapable of doing so. And we know that Ted is not required to report the accident in which he was involved as a driver.
Without looking at any answers yet, what can we already infer? We know there are two conditions that trigger required reporting: injury or damage exceeding 500. We also know that there is an exception, namely when a driver is incapable of doing so.
Since we know Ted was the driver in an accident, and we know that he was not required to report, we know that either there was no injury AND there was no damage exceeding 500, or if there was either of those, and Ted is incapable of reporting.
B is correct because it restates one version of that conclusion: if Ted’s car was damaged in excess of 500, he must be incapable of reporting (because we know he was not required to report!)
E is incorrect because it does not account for the second possibility our inferences figured out — that someone could be injured, or there could be property damage exceeding 500, but Ted could still be incapable of reporting. So that answer cannot be properly inferred.
I hope that helps! Please let us know if you have further questions.
