Any realtor currently looking for a location in which to start an agency would be wise to avoid locations where the economy is dependent on oil prices. When prices fall, some people connected to the oil industry will leave to invest in other markets. Office vacancies will increase and shops that served members of the oil industry may have to close their doors before their leases have expired. Currently, the oil industry is quite volatile.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a. Oil prices are currently less volatile than other factors that affect realtors.
b. Most cities whose economy is dependent on oil currently have a thriving real estate market.
c. Falling oil prices usually have some adverse affect on realtors in locations that don't have commercial space that is directly connected to the oil industry.
d. Realtors located in towns whose economy is oil-dependent are often among the first to recognize that the local economy has been adversely affected.
e. Some realtors benefit from being located in an area that has sudden drops in real estate value.
How can e. be the answer? How can one assume that when some people connected to the oil industry leave due to falling oil prices, the real estate value will have a sudden drop? It can be that the real estate value increases or it doesn't drop "suddenly". It seems a jump in logic to conclude that there will be sudden drops in real estate value.
I know that in a weaken arguments, you assume that the answer choices are true. So I assume that it is true that " Some realtors benefit from being located in an area that has sudden drops in real estate value." But how can I assume that it is true that a fall in oil prices will lead to a sudden drop in real estate value?
Also why can't a. be the answer? a. shows an alternate path that the realtor need not worry about oil prices since the other factors he has to worry about are more volatile making the oil factor irrelevant or unimportant.