Q13 - Davis: The only relevant factor

[LSAT-Chang]

HellO!
Very quick question.. is (E) wrong because there is no "case-by-case" basis going on? I circled (E) over (D) because I thought Higuchi agreed with the statement whereas Davis disagreed, since David would agree with having a "general rule" which is the "ONLY relevant factor in determining appropriate compensation... is the value of property" but I guess Higuchi is not really saying that they should go by a "case-by-case" basis, but rather just that more than one factor must be considered in determining appropriate compensation, right?

[timmydoeslsat]

You are definitely down to the two most tempting answers. I just looked at this problem and picked D.

I picked D because I knew for an absolute fact that Higuchi would agree with that. I also know that Davis would disagree with it. The reason he would disagree is that he does not believe that a greater amount of time that someone is deprived on their property has ANY bearing on compensation. His formula for compensation is very straight forward. Time away from the item in question is not a factor, so he would disagree with the idea that some victims would get INCREASED compensation because of TIME AWAY.

E is something that we do not know whether Higuchi would agree or disagree with it. We know that he thinks multiple factors must be considered, however we do not know if he is in favor of using a method of case by case or a general rule.

Davis' position on this statement is also somewhat uncertain in my opinion. His general rule is a case by case basis in my opinion. I would like for an instructor's opinion on what Davis' take is about choice E. I would say that he uses both a general rule to guide him in a case by case basis. So with saying that, I would go with disagree.

[LSAT-Chang]

E is something that we do not know whether Higuchi would agree or disagree with it. We know that he thinks multiple factors must be considered, however we do not know if he is in favor of using a method of case by case or a general rule.

Davis' position on this statement is also somewhat uncertain in my opinion. His general rule is a case by case basis in my opinion. I would like for an instructor's opinion on what Davis' take is about choice E. I would say that he uses both a general rule to guide him in a case by case basis. So with saying that, I would go with disagree.

I completely agree with you. I think Davis' position is both a general rule + case by case basis because the general rule is the relevant factor in determining compensation always being ONLY the value of property loses due to the damage or the value of the property stolen -- and there is a case by case basis here since the value wouldn't be the same for everyone and it would depend on the property or the damage itself.

[bbirdwell]

I have to disagree with you, gentleman.

My two cents:

Davis sides with "general rule." Yes, the general rule will apply differently to different cases, but the rule itself remains the governing force in each case -- the measures by which the cases are decided are NOT being determined on a "case by case" basis.

"Case by case" means that an entirely distinct set of factors could be considered for each case. Perhaps in one instance the owner was away from the property for a long time, so time is a factor. Perhaps in another case there was psychological damage... whatever.

Davis is saying that the ONLY thing worth considering, regardless of which case, is value. This is a general rule.

Higuchi? Who knows. He says that multiple factors must be considered. We don't know whether he believes those factors should be the same for each case (a general rule), or determined by the specifics of each case (case by case).

[majingjoy]

I am confused on why C is not right and the difference between C and D. Is it because that C is what they both agree on, they try to figure out a way to compensate victims proportionally but they do not agree on how? If not what is the reason for killing C?

Thanks in advance!

[timmydoeslsat]

On C, I do believe that they would both agree.

The issue would be that Davis feels that the suffering is only the value of the object, while Higuchi feels that suffering includes a time span at the very least.

[griffin.811]

I think the issue with C is we don't know H's stance on "harm done". All we know is that he feels: longer time missing ---> more compensation.

We would have to assume he feels this way because time equates to the amount of harm done, in the case of C. (Think of a ticket to concert stolen the day of. It doesn't matter if the ticket is returned one day after the concert, or one year after the concert. the harm done is the same in that the person could not attend the concert.)

While I dont think that is too big a jump, D is much cleaner, opting to get right to the issue at hand - the amount of time the item has been away from the proper owner.

[Aquamarine]

I had hard time to choose between A and D and picked A.
But I am not sure why A is wrong.
Can someone explain me why A is wrong?