Strengthen arg by consolidating the argument feasibility?

[duyng9989]

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.

The question is from MANHATTAN GMAT CAT exam.

I chose C, Ans is B.

My reason is that C is the argument assumption: It Helps the argument in that okay, if you want profit by buying the land, at least you are able to buy the land. Therefore, C supports the argument.

In ManhattanGMAT CR: assumption helps to establish the feasibility of premise of the argument. Therefore, it strengthens the argument.

What is wrong with my logic?

(I suspect that the word "Many" in Choice C makes it wrong?)

Thank you.

PS: Might be this is my last post. I will have the exam in two days. Wish me good luck :v

[Willy]

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.

The question is from MANHATTAN GMAT CAT exam.

I chose C, Ans is B.

My reason is that C is the argument assumption: It Helps the argument in that okay, if you want profit by buying the land, at least you are able to buy the land. Therefore, C supports the argument.

In ManhattanGMAT CR: assumption helps to establish the feasibility of premise of the argument. Therefore, it strengthens the argument.

What is wrong with my logic?

(I suspect that the word "Many" in Choice C makes it wrong?)

Thank you.

PS: Might be this is my last post. I will have the exam in two days. Wish me good luck :v

I can tell you few things wrong in C.

First the conclusion is -- A developer who wishes to make a large profit would be wise to buy urban waterfront lots and erect residential buildings on them.

So the answer choice has to do something with - profit from residential buildings on waterfront lots.

Option C doesn't say on urban lots available we can erect residential buildings, may be those lots are not suitable for erecting residential buildings!

Option C doesn't offer answer to whether purchasing those lots will be profitable.

Option C doesn't even answer what if there are many available lots but nobody wants to buy?

Option B answers all these and is the best answer choice!

P.S. - Best of Luck for the exam!

[jlucero]

I see you've already taken your test, duyng9989. Hopefully you aced it and aren't reading these forums any longer :)

Willy did a good job of answering this one, but what was said about the word "many" is important too. C would be much more powerful if it said "there were any lots available". The opposite of C, as it is written, is that there are not MANY lots available- there could still be a few.

[dwivedianushka26]

Why isn't option E) right?

If the developer wants large profit and people are ready to pay huge sums then its important that the plots cost him less as well right? Isn't that the gap in the argument?

That's what is mentioned in E).

[RonPurewal]

you have a good point. what does the answer key say about that choice?

[harika.apu]

you have a good point. what does the answer key say about that choice?

Hi Ron , This is what answer key tells about option E
This choice states that properties in the interior of cities are more expensive than those on the waterfront.
Although waterfront properties are therefore cheaper to acquire, this does not necessarily mean that a developer can
make a profit after buying such properties

[tim]

That's exactly what I would have said. Just because you can pick something up cheaper than something else doesn't imply you'll make a profit. Having people willing to pay a lot for what you're selling does.

[harika.apu]

That's exactly what I would have said. Just because you can pick something up cheaper than something else doesn't imply you'll make a profit. Having people willing to pay a lot for what you're selling does.

Now i understand tim . Thanks

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[GauravB257]

While working on this question, I paused on option B but I skipped it because:-
Since, HO willing to spend on traditional industrial/commercial districts -> since, waterfront was a industrial/commercial district therefore attractive to HO BUT then are all industrial/commercial properties across America attractive to HOs?..
Am I thinking too much into this?

I eventually ended up guessing "D" because the tax incentives allow the developer to buy the properties at a cheaper price and the passage ALREADY mentions that beach front properties are attractive to homeowners. WIN-WIN for developers!!
Also, why is D incorrect?

Following is the explanation for D:-
(D) This choice states that many coastal cities are giving tax breaks to developers who rehabilitate the waterfront. But this does not suggest that anyone will buy the developed properties.

[LauraH641]

It is unclear to me why B is a better answer than D. The question discusses Profit which involves both Revenue and Cost. B supports the Revenue side of the equation while D supports the Cost side...

[MaheshJ547]

Even I found the option D more convincing. Profit is equal to Revenue minus cost.
So, any option which either increases revenues or decreases costs would be the right one.

In option D, the developer can reduce costs due to tax incentives. However, based on Ron's explanation on crossing out option E, we can decipher that although the costs are lower in option D, we are not sure if people would buy these properties. Hence we can't be sure if profits are certainly going to increase or remain neutral.

[RachitS713]

Agree. D seems better than B.

We don't know if there will be any profits if people will buy a lot - B. (conclusion says profits).
But IMO , tax incentives point towards the margins.

[FuM520]

Agree. D seems better than B.

We don't know if there will be any profits if people will buy a lot - B. (conclusion says profits).
But IMO , tax incentives point towards the margins.

Agree this point.

Hope a reply from experts

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

The claim in question is "A developer who wishes to make a large profit would be wise to buy urban waterfront lots and erect residential buildings on them." Making a large profit requires the ability to sell the properties at a price significantly more than the cost of buying the land and erecting buildings on it.

Sure, tax incentives may help (answer D). One problem is that we don't know how much these tax incentives are. More importantly, these incentives may be provided because the business idea would be unprofitable without them.

Sure, for the plan to work, there must be some waterfront lots available for sale (answer C). However, a single developer doesn't need that much land in order to make a large profit. And if there are too many vacant lots, then perhaps other developers will get in on the plan.

The argument mentions 'homes along the beach front' as an example of desirable waterfront properties. There's a massive leap from those to 'urban waterfront lots'; the first is clearly desirable, the second less obviously so. Clearly, in order to make a profit, the developer must be able to sell off the properties that she builds. Answer B addresses this.

When reading CR arguments, it's essential to read the argument critically and spot the weaknesses within it. When I read this argument for the first time I had about half a dozen questions about it, including:
Have the waterfronts already been developed?
Is it possible to buy industrial lots and turn them into residential ones?
Are there any legal restrictions?
Is land by the waterfront expensive to buy, or expensive to develop?
Would anyone want to live on the waterfront shown in The Wire Season 2?

Thus, when I came to the answer choices, I could see if any of them were addressing the weaknesses in the argument that I'd already noticed.