PT74.S1.Q24 - Accident leading to personal injury or property damage

Ashley2018-1

Personal Injury (PI) or personal damage exceeding 500 (PD>500)------> LR (legally required to report accident)
"Unless the driver is incapable"- Capable-----> /LR (is this right?)
/LR (Ted is NOT legally required to report accident)
Must be true:
/LR-----> /PI and /PD>500 or Capable? Is this right?

Admin Note https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-24/

canihazJD

73.1.24 is an RC question, but I vaguely remember this one.

"Unless the driver is incapable"- Capable-----> /LR (is this right?)

It's if the driver is incapable, they are not required to report. So capable→LR.

Ashley2018-1

Isn't unless "not" so Not Incapable so that's a double negative so capable? this question was from LR

canihazJD

Without having the question to reference, my recollection of it is:

If you cause (injury) or (damage $500+) then you are legally required to report, unless the driver is incapable.

Being incapable is the cutout or exception to being required to report even if you met the criteria to be legally required.

(having met the criteria) LR unless incapable

if not incapable, LR

C→LR

@"ashley.tien" said:
Isn't unless "not" so Not Incapable so that's a double negative so capable? this question was from LR

Yes, thats right, but you were negating LR where you didn't need to, giving you C→/LR. Try cutting the requirements out and just start with "you are legally required to report, unless you are incapable."

So if someone is not legally required to report, they either didn't meet any of the two conditions that require it, or they are incapable of reporting... not sure but I think I remember the ACs gave you a few conditions each.

Ashley2018-1

oh, so is that why the answer is B because: If Ted's car was damaged in excess of 500 (PD>500)----> LR----> /C (incapable?)
and for unless the driver is incapable, in normal english that would translate to: if the driver is capable of reporting the accident, he is not legally required to do so?

canihazJD

Ok found it... PT74.

So yeah B is right because if there was damage exceeding $500, that by itself would require reporting, but since the stimulus tells us he doesn't have to report it, he must be incapable.

@"ashley.tien" said:
oh, so is that why the answer is B because: If Ted's car was damaged in excess of 500 (PD>500)----> LR----> /C (incapable?)
and for unless the driver is incapable, in normal english that would translate to: if the driver is capable of reporting the accident, he is not legally required to do so?

The first thing to point out I think is that I don't believe this question is best attacked with conditional logic. It's definitely doable but unnecessary. I think the issue you're running into is this part:

LR----> /C (incapable?)

What you're saying with this is that if you are legally required to report then you are incapable of reporting. See how that doesn't really make sense?

Lets call causing $500+ damages and/or injury condition "A".

Stimulus gives you:

(if A then LR) unless incapable.
in other words
if capable then (if A then LR)

and also it gives us:

/LR

so we know either the criteria A was not met for required reporting, or the exception applies - ted is incapable.

Ashley2018-1

Being capable is an exception to the rule, isn't it? normally if the driver is involved in PI or PD>500 then he is legally required to report the accident except/unless he is capable of doing so. So I've seen different people explain/diagram this differently and that's where I get confused.

C---> (PI or D>500---> LR) but I've seen some people diagram this as C and (PI or D>500)----> LR); is that correct though? I saw this on LSATHacks and manhattan prep
/LR
so we can infer: no personal injury and no damage greater than 500 or, if as B states, there was damage greater than 500 or personal injury, then the driver must have been incapable