Davis: The only relevant factor

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match4% picked this

   It is possible to consistently and reliably determine the amount of compensation owed to someone whose property

   Neither speaker takes a clear position on whether compensation can be reliably and consistently determined. Davis offers a single-factor rule; Higuchi argues for multiple factors. Neither says it's impossible (or guaranteed) to apply their rules consistently. So this isn't a clean point of disagreement.

   4%
2. B

   Both Agree2% picked this

   Some victims are owed increased compensation because of the greater dollar value of the damage

   Both speakers would agree that some victims are owed more because of greater dollar value of damage. Davis explicitly says value is the only factor — so higher value = more compensation. Higuchi says more than one factor matters but doesn't deny that value is one of them. So both endorse this. Not a point of disagreement.

   2%
3. C

   Both Agree9% picked this

   Victims who are deprived of their property are owed compensation in proportion to the harm

   Both speakers accept the principle that compensation should be proportional to harm. They disagree about what determines harm — Davis says only value, Higuchi says value plus duration — but they don't disagree about the proportionality principle itself. So this isn't the point of disagreement.

   9%
4. D

   Correct70% picked this

   Some victims are owed increased compensation because of the greater amount of time they are deprived of the

   Why this is right

   This is the disagreement. Davis says value is the only relevant factor — that rules out increased compensation for longer deprivation. Higuchi explicitly says longer deprivation does entitle a victim to more compensation. So Davis says NO to this claim, Higuchi says YES. Direct, clean disagreement.

   Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
5. E

   Bad Match16% picked this

   The compensation owed to victims should be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than by

   Neither speaker takes a position on case-by-case versus general-rule determination. Both seem to endorse general rules — Davis's rule is one-factor, Higuchi's is multi-factor — but neither addresses whether compensation should be determined individually rather than by rule. No clear disagreement.

   16%