Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 12:17 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 12:17

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Kudos
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 254 [17]
Given Kudos: 19
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: Mannheim '15
GPA: 3
WE:Human Resources (Consulting)
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 871
Own Kudos [?]: 8553 [11]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Send PM
General Discussion
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4379
Own Kudos [?]: 32859 [3]
Given Kudos: 4452
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 65 [0]
Given Kudos: 46
GMAT 1: 480 Q48 V9
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
As per my view:
I can see two options B and D
B : is there so much of residential issue that people need to share place.
D : If already people are sharing then what is use of the law now?
So from these two argument says in 1st line about 3 people law...if this would have been the issue then it would have satisfied D.
But in the last line it says there won't be any issue of searching house during crisis, taht means people increses during this crisis for rent so they search houses.And the law will be helpful in that time.So it satisfies B , that how many people will be available during crisis so that law will be helpful.

Please let me know if it helps!!!!
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2014
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 90
Location: India
GPA: 3
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
During recession, people lose job, freshers struggle to get job, cut in salary,no increment ............ LESS/NO MONEY or LIQUIDITY , people spend less.
Why would anyone will like to go for costly accommodation during recession when cheaper options are available ?
But the question is , if most of the apartments get converted into shared apartment, number of vacancies will increase.But it is nowhere mentioned that from where or by whom all those vacancies will be filled.

Option B addresses the same issue
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 56 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
Yes, but I feel B and D are equally evaluating on different ways..

(B) Whether the number of apartment hunters increases significantly during economic recessions
For this, if the ans is yes, then passing the regulation is good. If no, then passing the regulation is useless...

(D) What proportion of city tenants currently live in apartments that already have an extra wall that converts a large living room into an extra converted shared room?
On this, if the proportion is already high, then they wont find even more cheap apartments and regulation will be useless, as the tenants don't have to find one. If the proportion is low, then there will be a need to find one in times of recession, so the regulation will be useful..

Please help..
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2014
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 90
Location: India
GPA: 3
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
Those who are already living in shared accommodation will naturally come on road during recession. And hence creating required vacancy :) ....... joking :lol:

From This statement only the current distribution/proportion of the population living in shared apartments can be found.It is not addressing the necessity / demand during recession period.



sheolokesh wrote:
Yes, but I feel B and D are equally evaluating on different ways..

(B) Whether the number of apartment hunters increases significantly during economic recessions
For this, if the ans is yes, then passing the regulation is good. If no, then passing the regulation is useless...

(D) What proportion of city tenants currently live in apartments that already have an extra wall that converts a large living room into an extra converted shared room?
On this, if the proportion is already high, then they wont find even more cheap apartments and regulation will be useless, as the tenants don't have to find one. If the proportion is low, then there will be a need to find one in times of recession, so the regulation will be useful..

Please help..
avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 294
Own Kudos [?]: 153 [0]
Given Kudos: 41
Location: European union
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
I really believe that A could be correct as well.
If the leaseholder is charged additional amount, depending on how much, the apartment can become really expensive and this can prevent people from moving in there; hence, it WILL in fact become more difficult for these people to find a place there :)
But this once more confirms my thoughts that non OG questions are simply not worth the time
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 May 2014
Posts: 72
Own Kudos [?]: 44 [0]
Given Kudos: 21
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
Can someone explain how the last sentence makes sense? Though vacancies tend to rise, it should not be hard to find an apartment. If vacancies rise. It will be easy to find an apartment. The use of though seems to want to introduce a something on the contrary to ease of finding a place. Can anyone explain?
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 56 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
veerdonjuan wrote:
Those who are already living in shared accommodation will naturally come on road during recession. And hence creating required vacancy :) ....... joking :lol:

From This statement only the current distribution/proportion of the population living in shared apartments can be found.It is not addressing the necessity / demand during recession period.



sheolokesh wrote:
Yes, but I feel B and D are equally evaluating on different ways..

(B) Whether the number of apartment hunters increases significantly during economic recessions
For this, if the ans is yes, then passing the regulation is good. If no, then passing the regulation is useless...

(D) What proportion of city tenants currently live in apartments that already have an extra wall that converts a large living room into an extra converted shared room?
On this, if the proportion is already high, then they wont find even more cheap apartments and regulation will be useless, as the tenants don't have to find one. If the proportion is low, then there will be a need to find one in times of recession, so the regulation will be useful..

Please help..



Ok, then let me reframe Option D in this way,

During non recession if 99 of 100 apartments are having shared living, during recession if all 100 becomes shared apartments. In this senario, the new Law will have no efficient effect and viseversa. Then how the law could not rely on this? To check the demand vs availabiity rate, I feel this information is vital..
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2014
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 90
Location: India
GPA: 3
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
Lokesh Bhai !!

Then what if I say that during recession only 1 person is looking for the shared accommodation. And for what you have assumed 99/100 during non recession the remaining one apartment owner puts lets say 6 walls and hence creating 6 more vacancies. Thats why inorder to restrict supply court has restrained the no, of tenants max upto 3.

So here court has limited the supply. Now to further evaluate the argument we need to know the demand that will be created during recession period.

Now lets see option D
If the proportion of city tenants currently live in shared apartments is known, then also it will not help in determining the the demand?

For example :
'x' no.s of person are living in twin sharing.
'y' in triple sharing and so on.........

It is possible that during recession period , some might switch from twin to triple sharing or even more , in that case proportion will be the same but demand is changing .

I hope the above explanation is helpful to you Lokesh.



sheolokesh wrote:
veerdonjuan wrote:
Those who are already living in shared accommodation will naturally come on road during recession. And hence creating required vacancy :) ....... joking :lol:

From This statement only the current distribution/proportion of the population living in shared apartments can be found.It is not addressing the necessity / demand during recession period.



sheolokesh wrote:
Yes, but I feel B and D are equally evaluating on different ways..

(B) Whether the number of apartment hunters increases significantly during economic recessions
For this, if the ans is yes, then passing the regulation is good. If no, then passing the regulation is useless...

(D) What proportion of city tenants currently live in apartments that already have an extra wall that converts a large living room into an extra converted shared room?
On this, if the proportion is already high, then they wont find even more cheap apartments and regulation will be useless, as the tenants don't have to find one. If the proportion is low, then there will be a need to find one in times of recession, so the regulation will be useful..

Please help..



Ok, then let me reframe Option D in this way,

During non recession if 99 of 100 apartments are having shared living, during recession if all 100 becomes shared apartments. In this senario, the new Law will have no efficient effect and viseversa. Then how the law could not rely on this? To check the demand vs availabiity rate, I feel this information is vital..
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 56 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
Ok, I hope I am getting it now.. What I thought is, if 99% of the people(lets say each earning 10000$ PM) are already staying in cheap shared rented apartments(100$ rent). So I thought ressesion will not have effect on them as 100$ is an affordable cost... So we need to find out who could not pay(those falls under 1%, earning 1000$ PM) and only those 1% will search for the cheaper apartments... Thus leads to a question what is option B....

On the whole D needs an answer of another question to evaluate it... But B is a more direct one..
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17206
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Gotham City has just introduced a legal requirement that [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne