In the 18th and 19th centuries

[clock60]

In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was believed in many coastal American cities that the waterfront was an undesirable location for residential buildings. As a result, much of the waterfront in these cities was never developed aesthetically and instead was left to industry and commerce. Today, however, waterfront properties are generally seen as prestigious, as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front. A developer who wishes to make a large profit would be wise to buy urban waterfront lots and erect residential buildings on them.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim made about urban waterfront properties?
a)People today have more money, relatively speaking, to spend on real estate than they did in previous centuries.
b)Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts
c)Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
d)Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives
e)Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those along the waterfront.
oa is B
[spoiler]
hi guys, i pick D as B to me only restate text, we know from the passage that large sums are already paid for homes along fron beach, can somebody elucidate the problem[/spoiler]

[beat_gmat_09]

The stimulus says Waterfront properties are prestigious and needs more money to buy one. A developer should therefore buy a waterfront property and erect buildings there.
Why will it be wise for a developer to buy a waterfront property ? If he makes good on it ? There could be many coasts in America, the statement in the stimulus is generalized.
B - says that homeowners will be willing to spend big amounts. If they are ready to spend money then a developer can guarantee outputs . This is generalized statement.
D - "Many" - what about some cities which do not give this incentive, as mentioned in the stimulus the statement is generalized. Another point is will people from other cities come and buy property where tax incentives are given. Will people buy the space ? Will a developer guarantee profits ?

[G_mater]

In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was believed in many coastal American cities that the waterfront was an undesirable location for residential buildings. As a result, much of the waterfront in these cities was never developed aesthetically and instead was left to industry and commerce. Today, however, waterfront properties are generally seen as prestigious, as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front. A developer who wishes to make a large profit would be wise to buy urban waterfront lots and erect residential buildings on them.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim made about urban waterfront properties?
a)People today have more money, relatively speaking, to spend on real estate than they did in previous centuries.
b)Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts
c)Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
d)Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives
e)Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those along the waterfront.
oa is B
[spoiler]
hi guys, i pick D as B to me only restate text, we know from the passage that large sums are already paid for homes along fron beach, can somebody elucidate the problem[/spoiler]

I think the answer is B and here is my reasoning:

Premises:

_ In the 18th and 19th centuries: Water front was an undesirable location for residential buildings and as a result it was
left to industry and commerce.
_ Today: Water front is now a desirable location for residential buildings (Seen as prestigious) and large sums paid for homes along the beach front.

Conclusion: Waterfront properties are a profitable investment.


A- they have more money doesn't mean they will use it to buy waterfront properties.
B- Since in the 18th and 19 th century the waterfront has been filled with commercial and industrial districts. If homeowners are willing to spend money on properties in these districts, then the conclusion is supported! This is it !
C- Lots are available for purchase does not mean they will be purchased nor that buildings will be erected.
D- Rehabilitation is not what the argument is about.
E- The properties along the waterfront cost less than those in interior- Doesn't mean that they are more attractive to homeowners and we don't know if the money spent on them is enough to generate profit for investors.







[/u]