LSAT 116 – Section 2 – Question 13

LSAT 116 - Section 2 - Question 13

June 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:20

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT116 S2 Q13
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
A
3%
155
B
1%
155
C
7%
157
D
72%
165
E
16%
158
143
153
163
 +Harder 146.822 +SubsectionMedium

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.

Higuchi: I disagree. More than one factor must be considered: A victim who recovers the use of personal property after two years is owed more than a victim who recovers its use after only one year.

Speaker 1 Summary
Davis concludes that the compensation for property damage or theft should be based solely on the value of the property damaged or stolen. This is because the harm to the victim is directly proportional to that value.

Speaker 2 Summary
Higuchi concludes that the compensation should be based on more than just the value of the property damaged or stolen. This is because how quickly the victim recovers the property should influence the compensation.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on whether compensation for property damage or theft should be based on more than just the value of the property. Davis thinks it should be based only on the value of the property. Higuchi thinks it should include consideration of when the victim recovered the property.

A
It is possible to consistently and reliably determine the amount of compensation owed to someone whose property was damaged or stolen.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They tell us about certain factors they think are relevant to compensation. But whether we can make reliable and consistent calculations about compensation amounts is not discussed.
B
Some victims are owed increased compensation because of the greater dollar value of the damage done to their property.
This is not a point of disagreement. Davis agrees that value matters for determining compensation, and there’s no evidence Higuchi disagrees that value matters.
C
Victims who are deprived of their property are owed compensation in proportion to the harm they have suffered.
Not a point of disagreement. Davis agrees and thinks harm should be measured by the value of the property. We can’t say Higuchi disagrees. He may want other factors included in how we measure harm, but there’s no evidence he thinks compensation shouldn’t be based on harm.
D
Some victims are owed increased compensation because of the greater amount of time they are deprived of the use of their property.
This is a point of disagreement. Davis thinks time of deprivation shouldn’t be a factor in compensation; only value of the property matters. Higuchi thinks time of deprivation should be a factor in compensation.
E
The compensation owed to victims should be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than by some general rule.
Not a point of disagreement. Both speakers advocate for a general rule for calculating compensation. They may disagree about specific factors that should be part of that rule, but they both advocate for a rule.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 116 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply