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. Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives.
C. Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or
commercial districts.
D. Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
E. Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those
along the waterfront.

How C can be the answer and D not?

Having lots available doesn't really contribute directly to the making a large profit.
Profit depends on the homeowners if they are willing to buy.

My Explanation:
Money power doesn't make anyone buy the properties which was considered undesirable earlier so A is out.
B doesn't make any sense.
E is opposite of the of is stated in the paragraph.
D is not correct choice as people are willing to buy waterfront sited because they are prestigious and willing to pay higher price for the same and not because lots of it are available.
C supports the argument that people are willing to spend large sums in industrial or commercial districts which are not in waterfront.
_________________

FOCUS..this is all I need!

Ku-Do!

Conclusion = A developer who wishes to make a large profit would be wise to buy urban waterfront lots and erect residential buildings on them.

B. Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives. => This is clearly out of scope because it does not relate to the developer's profits. This is only about the policy of the Coastal city in order to develop their own cities.
C. Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts. => If homeowners are ready to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts (this is belong to the waterfront) => strengthen the argument
D. Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase. => the developer will not profit from the waterfront.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

On the GMAT, "Many" means "More than one." It's entirely possible that many--or even most--cities are not offering such discounts! Regardless, the conclusion in the prompt doesn't make any qualifications about when or where it is wise to buy such properties, just that it is wise to do so; tax incentives, especially tax incentives limited in location to who-knows-how-few cities, are out of scope.
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course!



Kaplan Reviews

Hi but aren't you making a logical fallacy in choosing E. if all A( water front properties) is B(industrial zones) then all B is A. Although a buyer is interested in industrial properties, it may be so that he does not want it next to any body of water.

Although B is fishy, it shows that developers can make large profits by cutting tax costs. On the other hand, the passage also states the premise that people are interested in buying shore front properties.

I think the OA is debatable

Posted from GMAT ToolKit