PrepTest 116, Section 2, Question 13
Davis: The only relevant factor in determining appropriate(70 more words not shown)
Davis's and Higuchi's statements most(17 more words not shown)
- AIt is possible(18 more words not shown)
- BSome victims are(16 more words not shown)
- CVictims who are(15 more words not shown)
- DSome victims are(19 more words not shown)
- EThe compensation owed(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Only the property's value? What about something with sentimental importance?
Imagine a cheap tube of lip balm that your grandmother gave you. Its price might be tiny, while losing that particular gift could matter a great deal to you. Davis's value-only approach leaves me wondering what else compensation should account for.
Higuchi raises a different additional factor: how long the victim loses the use of the property. Think of a printer you need for your work. Getting the same printer back after two years leaves you without its use for longer than getting it back after one. Higuchi says that extra time should increase compensation, even though we haven't changed the value of the printer itself.
What we’re looking for
The disagreement question asks us to find a claim with Davis on one side and Higuchi on the other. Davis says the pertinent property value is the only relevant factor. Higuchi says time without the property matters too. That's the contrast I want to find in the answers.
Working the answers
- A
Neither speaker argues that calculating compensation is impossible or unreliable. They disagree about what should go into that calculation. A concerns whether the task can be done consistently, rather than which factors matter when doing it.
- B
Davis certainly treats greater property loss as relevant to greater compensation. Higuchi asks us to consider an additional factor; Higuchi doesn't reject property value. We can't get opposing positions merely because one speaker thinks the other has left something out.
- C
Be careful about what “harm” includes. Davis connects harm directly to the pertinent property value. Higuchi thinks time without the property's use also matters. They could disagree about the components of harm while both wanting compensation to reflect it.
Moreover, Higuchi doesn't state a precise proportional rule. Saying two years deserves more than one doesn't tell us how much more. C doesn't give us a clear claim that one speaker accepts and the other rejects.
- DCorrect
Higuchi expressly says a victim deprived of use for two years is owed more than a victim deprived for one. That makes additional time a reason for increased compensation. Davis rules out that additional factor by saying the property's pertinent value is the only relevant consideration. D puts them on opposite sides of the actual example.
- E
Adding time as a factor doesn't require abandoning general rules. A rule could calculate compensation using both value and duration. Davis proposes a value rule; Higuchi wants another consideration included. Neither says compensation must be decided without a general rule on an entirely case-by-case basis.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.