Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S2 · Q13 Davis: The only relevant factor

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Davis: The only relevant factor in determining appropriate compensation for property damage or theft is the value the property loses due to damage or the value of the property stolen; the harm to the victim is directly proportional to the pertinent value.

Davis's position

The only relevant factor for compensation is the value lost or stolen — that value is directly proportional to the harm. Time-of-deprivation is not a separate factor.

Higuchi's position

More than one factor matters. Specifically: a victim deprived of property for two years is owed more than a victim deprived for only one year — so duration of deprivation matters.

Evaluate

Find the claim where Davis says one thing and Higuchi says the opposite. Davis's "value is the only factor" rules out duration as a factor; Higuchi explicitly endorses duration as a factor by saying longer deprivation → more compensation. They disagree directly on the claim "duration of deprivation matters for compensation amounts."

Goal

Find the answer that captures the disagreement: whether longer time without one's property entitles a victim to more compensation.

13.

Davis's and Higuchi's statements most strongly support the view that they would disagree with each other about which one of the following?

  1. It is possible to consistently

    Bad Match

    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.

    3% picked this

  2. Some victims are owed increased

    Both Agree

    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% picked this

  3. Victims who are deprived of

    Both Agree

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    Some victims are owed increased

    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.

    71% picked this

  5. The compensation owed to victims

    Bad Match

    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.

    15% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free