In many states landowners may make use

Our objective is to weaken the conclusion ( highlighted above )

None but (D) states that owners take advantage of conservation easements for 2 specific benefits -

1. Make more money by renting their property
2. Tax benefits

Thus (D) presents alternate reasons for choice of renting their property and hence weaken the conclusion....

Hence answer will be (B)

Is this really from GMATPrep software? Have you transcribed it from the software or copied from another forum?

Why not option E?
Conclusion: Owners should make use of the easement (legal agreements) to prevent unwanted developments.
Option E states that if the value of the unrestricted land rises then the development will start on that land and unwanted developments won't be able to stop. So it is of no use to make the use of the easement.

Kindly reply, I am confused for this one.

The passage states that developers offer more than the rent then how will they make more money by renting the property?

A is better than B, but one should use C.
Weakener-1 as given in option D: B +X is as beneficial as C
Weakener-2: C is not beneficial as A
where:
A: selling land to developers
B: Renting
C: Easement
X: Tax benefits

OR

https://gmatdaily.com/20140520-gmat-question-of-the-day.html
This is a weaken question. The argument is that owners of certain properties who wish to avoid development on those properties should take advantage of conservation easements, which prevent development, and give the owners substantial tax benefits. The argument assumes that, as a way of preventing development, the tax benefits of an easement are preferable (probably in dollar terms) than simply renting the property and continuing to own it. Consider each choice:

(A) This is irrelevant; all trusts that purchase lands under easements would achieve the same end regarding development, whether they re-sell the property or not.
(B) The population density of an area has nothing to do with the argument; presumably, most areas have low density before they are developed.
(C) The argument isn't about what owners can do, it's about what they should do--the fact that they can split up their land does not mean that's the route they should take.
(D) This is correct. If more financial benefits accrue to owners who rent property than those who donate an easement, those owners prevent development (as desired) and get more money.
(E) The argument is concerned with the benefits of specific land owners; the effect on other lands based on easement decisions is out of the scope of this question

I am unable to understand the stimuli. What actually we are looking for Rakesh1987

Hi Rakesh1987,

Thank you for your kind explanation.

However, I have some doubt on the question.

In the conclusion, it looks like the goal is to prevent unwanted development, not need of funds.

So, my question is what part of the argument can we infer that it is to deal with "need of funds" ?

Please explain.

Thank you.

This one "Normally, owners of unused farmland and other undeveloped property are often under market pressure to sell to developers, who can offer much more for it than could be made from renting the property."

Fact 1: Development offers more money than renting, therefore people go for development.
Fact 2: It is unwanted development, and should be avoided
Conclusion: They should go for Conservation Easement instead.
What is assumed in the above argument??
Assumption: "Conservation Easement will offer more money than Renting"

Alternate cases (wrong ones)
Case 1- R>E: Now you tell me, if renting offers more money than Easement, why would the guy advise for conservation easement??
Case 2- R=E: If he were indifferent he would simply say people should not give land to developers, or he would say people should either rent or go for conservation easement.

By specifically stating these two things:
1) people require money therefore they sell land to developers instead of renting and
2) they should instead give their land for conservation easement.
He is implying that there is more money in conservation easement.

Please give +1 Kudos, if you liked the explanation

Can anyone help me how to approach weaken questions? I usually get them wrong and I am not able to figure it out

I could easily eliminate (B), (C) & (E) as these are clearly irrelevant.

Main challenge is between (A) and (D)


If land trusts sell the land to developers, and developers do the construction, the original owners will not be saved from unwanted development. Thus, this weakens the argument.


This makes renting more profitable than donating an easement. Thus, this weakens the argument.

However, the problem is, while 'some' land trusts are for profit, which can be inferred from (A), 'most' property owners can make more money by renting, as (D) states. Thus, (D) is better than (A)

GMATNinja

Can u please explain the meaning of the stimulus in detail?

Thanks and regards

the goal here is to prevent unwanted development. the plan is to donate an easement.

To weaken, we have to prove that plan will not work or plan will still lead to unwanted development.

D] gives an alternate option to earn more money. How is it related to the plan in question

Combining D with the information from the passage gives
Income from donated easement < Income from renting <<< Income from selling to developers
...in which case donating the easement is the worst of the three plans, in terms of the landowners' bottom line.

Let me take a stab at it.

Conclusion - Owners should take advantage of conservation easement.....
We are looking for information that will weaken the conclusion.

First, this is a classic comparison problem. We are presented with three options - easement restriction, developers, and rental. And finally, in the conclusion, one option is suggested. The basic assumption in such questions is that the advantage = benefits - efforts is more in the recommended options, i.e., easement restriction. Our job is to weaken it. We have to find if there is any alternate option out of three that has more advantages than the recommended options.

Now, let's break the argument.
When the landowner donates to the easement - they'll get a particular tax benefit for an amount equal to the land's Market value - The value under easement restrictions.

Usually, the landowners sell to Developers who offer more than renting a property. But considering we want to prevent unwanted development - this option is out.

Is there still any attractive option other than a conservation easement? While the developer's choice is out, renting is still in play. It meets both criteria
1. Prevents unwanted development
2. Financially more attractive - while for a conservation easement, the landowner will get the tax benefit, the renting offers tax benefit + rental. (This is what option D says)

It seems option D presents a scenario that presents more advantages than the recommended options.

Now option elimination

(A) Some land trusts are for-profit enterprises that buy and sell properties whose use is restricted. - Some can be at least 2. We are not concerned about outliers.
(B) Land donated using an easement is usually located in areas with very low population density. - But still, there is a possibility of land in high population density and if the landowner sells to a conservation easement, there is the possibility to prevent unwanted development.
(C) Some landowners are able to split up their properties such that part of the land is donated to a trust, and the rest continues to earn rents for the owner. - We are talking about the landowners who sell it in full.
(D) Most property owners can make more money by renting their property than by donating an easement and taking the corresponding tax benefits. - In line with our pre-thinking. And most is more than 51%, this weakens the conclusion that "Owners should take advantage of conservation easement.....". It implies that owners have an alternative and should not take advantage of the conservation easement.
(E) When land use is restricted, the value of surrounding unrestricted land rises. - We are concerned about the landowner whose land may be restricted if she/he follows the author's recommendation. We are not concerned about the surrounding land. We don't know if the surrounding land value will rise, which leads to unwanted development. Moreover, we need to prevent unwanted development in the land under conservation easement and not outside.

why should a landowner donate his or her easement to a land trust? does this statement have anything to do with the rest part?




­the two actions involved in the comparison do not even share the same subject, making this sentence far more than baffling.




ok, it seems that we finally know why a landowner should donate the easement, tax deduction.
but still makes no sense.
what these owners want? preventing unwanted development. and for such an idea to be realized, they should make use of a conservation easement.
what is the OA saying? more money through renting their property is more sexy than their initial purpose appears. and thus can be used to weaken the argument.


what an awful question.­­