BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR doubt

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

CR doubt

by dhonu121 » Tue May 29, 2012 11:39 am
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?
"¢ People today have more money, relatively speaking, to spend on real estate than they did in previous centuries.
"¢ Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial
districts.
"¢ Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
"¢ Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives.
"¢ Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those
along the waterfront.

OA:B
Choice B is just repeating what is stated in the passage.as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front How can that possibly strengthen the argument ?
AFAIK, the answer choice should tell something not already stated in the argument to strengthen it.

Can somebody explain this ?
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
MBA Admissions Consultant
Posts: 2279
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:51 am
Location: New York
Thanked: 660 times
Followed by:266 members
GMAT Score:770

by Jim@StratusPrep » Tue May 29, 2012 4:27 pm
First thing is that there is a difference in tense. The answer talks about the future and the passage talks about the past. Also, don't worry about rules so much when selecting answers, just try to find the answer that is least wrong.
GMAT Answers provides a world class adaptive learning platform.
-- Push button course navigation to simplify planning
-- Daily assignments to fit your exam timeline
-- Organized review that is tailored based on your abiility
-- 1,000s of unique GMAT questions
-- 100s of handwritten 'digital flip books' for OG questions
-- 100% Free Trial and less than $20 per month after.
-- Free GMAT Quantitative Review

Image
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Tue May 29, 2012 8:24 pm
Yes, the tense was the part I missed.
But, even then,How would you eliminate choice C as that also makes sense and is strengthening the argument ?
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 3:20 pm

by agautam7879 » Tue May 29, 2012 8:57 pm
The issue with C according to me is that it is not talking anything about the profitability of the developers.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:08 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by jimmyjimmy » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:35 pm
dhonu121 wrote:Yes, the tense was the part I missed.
But, even then,How would you eliminate choice C as that also makes sense and is strengthening the argument ?
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.

C is incorrect coz when many lots are available fro purchase means the price will be low and there wont be any profit..

B is correct coz in 18 and 19 century industries are established at water fronts, and now that same place is of more money and pepl are ready to invest at waterfronts..(traditionally industrial or commercial)

HIH!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:08 pm
Isn't C a better strengthener as compared to B here ?
B, although talking about a thing of the future is directly inferable from the argument whereas C is something that goes ahead of the argument to strengthen it.

Can somebody clarify this here.

Thanks.
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:12 pm
Thanked: 339 times
Followed by:49 members
GMAT Score:770

by eagleeye » Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:18 pm
It is a good question, one that I feel I should clarify on. The best answer is B. Let me explain:

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.

Let's break down the argument first.
We have:

1. Premise: In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was believed in many coastal American cities that the waterfront was an undesirable location for residential buildings.

2. Sub-conclusion: As a result, much of the waterfront in these cities was never developed aesthetically and instead was left to industry and commerce. This sub-conclusion becomes the premise to introduce contrast in the next part of the argument.

3. Premise: Today, however, waterfront properties are generally seen as prestigious, as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front.

4. Main Conclusion (claim): A developer who wishes to make a large profit would be wise to buy urban waterfront lots and erect residential buildings on them.

Let's discuss the main conclusion. We are told that the developer should:
1. Buy urban waterfront lots, and
2. Build residential buildings on them.
Why should the developer do so? We are told that:
3. If he or she wishes to make a large profit.
What is the risk?
People may not buy the home properties (since they are in commercial/industrial neighborhoods as per the sub-conclusion).

With this in mind, let's dissect the options:

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim made about urban waterfront properties?

"¢ People today have more money, relatively speaking, to spend on real estate than they did in previous centuries.
So what. And even if they did, why would they spend it on the waterfront properties developed by our developer? NO.

"¢ Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts.
It is a contender. If homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on the properties in the "industrial/commercial" space, then the developer will be assured that he can turn a profit on selling the properties.

"¢ Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
It is a contender also. If many lots are available for purchase, it will be easy for the developer to acquire them (and probably for cheap too). Also, the developer knows that these properties, if they are sold, will probably fetch a big sum of money. But alas, the developer still doesn't know whether the demand is high enough for the people to buy these "industrial/commercial" waterfront properties.

"¢ Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives.
For the same reasons as above, this is a contender also. Here, the developer will get some tax breaks on building the buildings. But ultimately, to make money, they must be sold. And there is no assurance of that happening in this case.

"¢ Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those along the waterfront.
It's out of scope. Even if you tried to, you could interpret it either as a case for developing in the interior, or along the outskirts. NO.

Now, among our three contenders, the best one is B because it assures the developer that should he or she erect a building in the commercial/industrial space, there will be buyers who would spend large sums of money. C and D, although viable, only serve to say that acquiring land in urban oceanfront will be easy (C) or developing it would be cheaper (D). Overall profit, in both cases, is not as strongly inferred as it is in B.

Hence we choose B.

Let me know if this helps :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:43 pm
eagleeye wrote: Let's discuss the main conclusion. We are told that the developer should:
1. Buy urban waterfront lots, and
2. Build residential buildings on them.
Why should the developer do so? We are told that:
3. If he or she wishes to make a large profit.
What is the risk?
People may not buy the home properties (since they are in commercial/industrial neighborhoods as per the sub-conclusion).
Look at the following premise in the stimulus: Today, however, waterfront properties are generally seen as prestigious, as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front.
If this is said, how can people not buying the home properities be reasonably infered ?
Hence, option B, which repeats this, is in a way repeating the premise.
Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
It is a contender also. If many lots are available for purchase, it will be easy for the developer to acquire them (and probably for cheap too). Also, the developer knows that these properties, if they are sold, will probably fetch a big sum of money. But alas, the developer still doesn't know whether the demand is high enough for the people to buy these "industrial/commercial" waterfront properties.
Again the same point. Its MENTIONED in the passage:
Today, however, waterfront properties are generally seen as prestigious, as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front.

This is the part that is conflicting.
Please clarify on this.

Thanks.
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:12 pm
Thanked: 339 times
Followed by:49 members
GMAT Score:770

by eagleeye » Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:47 pm
dhonu121 wrote:
eagleeye wrote: Let's discuss the main conclusion. We are told that the developer should:
1. Buy urban waterfront lots, and
2. Build residential buildings on them.
Why should the developer do so? We are told that:
3. If he or she wishes to make a large profit.
What is the risk?
People may not buy the home properties (since they are in commercial/industrial neighborhoods as per the sub-conclusion).
Look at the following premise in the stimulus: Today, however, waterfront properties are generally seen as prestigious, as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front.
If this is said, how can people not buying the home properities be reasonably infered ?
Hence, option B, which repeats this, is in a way repeating the premise.
Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
It is a contender also. If many lots are available for purchase, it will be easy for the developer to acquire them (and probably for cheap too). Also, the developer knows that these properties, if they are sold, will probably fetch a big sum of money. But alas, the developer still doesn't know whether the demand is high enough for the people to buy these "industrial/commercial" waterfront properties.
Again the same point. Its MENTIONED in the passage:
Today, however, waterfront properties are generally seen as prestigious, as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front.

This is the part that is conflicting.
Please clarify on this.

Thanks.
Hi dhonu121:

You seem to be inferring the wrong information from the premise.

It will help if you could suspend disbelief, and try to work with this line of reasoning. It will become clear in less time. So here goes:

From the premise:
"Today, waterfront properties are generally seen as prestigious, as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front"
We only know that:
a. There have been people in the recent past, who have paid top dollar for homes along the beach front, and this renders waterfront properties prestigious in general.
But, we don't know that:
b. There are still people out there (with wads of cash in hand), who will buy the newly developed properties when they are completed. Just because something is seen as prestigious, doesn't guarantee that it will sell. And remember, the only way for a developer to make a large profit, is to "sell" it at a hefty price.

You are thinking about this way too hard. Anyway, consider 2 scenarios:

1. There are only 10 very wealthy people in a city and they paid hefty sums to buy beachfront homes. They don't want to buy any more homes. The next group of people who would buy homes in the city don't have that much money to spare.

2. There are 100 wealthy people in a city and 10 of them paid hefty sums to buy beachfront homes. The other 90 want to buy beachfront homes and would pay top dollar for it.

3. There are 100 wealthy people in a city and 10 of them paid hefty sums to buy beachfront homes. The other 90 don't want to buy beachfront homes because those homes are too expensive.

Of the 3 options, only option 2 would make the developer money. Now, if you were the developer, and I was the guy selling you the urban lot, I would say, "Hey, 90 people are looking to buy beachfront properties, you should buy land and develop residences on them." You would probably be most eager in that case because you are not leaving the future of the residences to chance.

We can't assume that just because something is seen as prestigious, that there is demand for it. Hence the strongest support statement is the one that does not leave it to chance.

Let me know if this helps :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:06 am
You are thinking about this way too hard. Anyway, consider 2 scenarios:

1. There are only 10 very wealthy people in a city and they paid hefty sums to buy beachfront homes. They don't want to buy any more homes. The next group of people who would buy homes in the city don't have that much money to spare.

2. There are 100 wealthy people in a city and 10 of them paid hefty sums to buy beachfront homes. The other 90 want to buy beachfront homes and would pay top dollar for it.

3. There are 100 wealthy people in a city and 10 of them paid hefty sums to buy beachfront homes. The other 90 don't want to buy beachfront homes because those homes are too expensive.
Awesome..This helped !!
Thanks.
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1