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

Redeem

An industry analyst asserted in his recent report

Expert replies
by sachin_yadav » Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:49 am
An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative scarcity of housing in a particular market leads to larger than normal increases in price. During the late 1990s, according to the analyst's report, occupancy rates-a measure of the percentage of housing occupied at a given time-in crowded urban markets such as New York and San Francisco hovered around 99.5%. During the same period, housing prices increased by as much as 100% per year, compared to more normal past increases in the range of 5% to 15% per year. Which of the following is an assumption that supports the analyst's assertion?

A. In the housing market, there generally must be at least five buyers per seller in order to cause larger than normal increases in price.

B. Increases in demand often reflect an influx of new buyers into the marketplace or an unusual increase in buying power on the part of the customer.

C. The U.S. housing market showed a larger than average increase in the 1990s across the country, not just in crowded urban areas.

D. Price increases do not cause people to withhold their houses from the market in the hopes that prices will increase even further in the future.

E. A significant rise in housing prices in a specific area may cause some potential buyers to relocate to other, less pricey areas.

Answer is D
Never surrender
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by HSPA » Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:06 am
Thanks for the question.. I agree with OA as I got the same.
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Join the discussion

by mehrasa » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:59 am
IMO: D
the argument conclude that home scarcity result in higher prices..
as evidence, U.S property market was exemplified that due to high (at peak) demand, the price increased by 100%..
we need to assume that ppl(homeowners) are also willing to sell their houses and the scarcity of houses is not bcuz lack of house but high willingness of ppl to sell and high demand of customers

in fact choice D is defender assumption meaning that the negative tone of the choice eliminate any possibility in order to weaken the argument
Join the discussion

by sachin_yadav » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:10 am
Thanks mehrasa and HSPA.

What about choice A ? Why A cannot be the answer ? What is the exact reasoning for A ?

Regards
Sachin
Never surrender
Join the discussion

by mehrasa » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:55 am
sachin_yadav wrote:Thanks mehrasa and HSPA.

What about choice A ? Why A cannot be the answer ? What is the exact reasoning for A ?

Regards
Sachin
A is not correct bcuz if we negate this choice, the argument won't fall apart... actually this is really out of topic and irrelevant here... no matter how many buyers cause house prices to increase...
assumption is the sentence that help the conclusion to be true and without assumption the conclusion is not valid... just try to negate choice D... u will get it

'hope it helps
Join the discussion

by HSPA » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:08 pm
A is extreme. It seems like a kind of conclusion than an assumption.

There MUST be atleast 5 people who are intrested in the same buy, only then the inflation goes high..
sachin_yadav wrote:Thanks mehrasa and HSPA.

What about choice A ? Why A cannot be the answer ? What is the exact reasoning for A ?

Regards
Sachin
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Join the discussion

by chufus » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:20 am
D for sure. The rest all seem out of scope. !
Join the discussion