In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was believed in many coastal Americ

my pick is (B)

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.
>>> This does not effect property developers profit

b)Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts.
>>> Since homeowners are willing to spend large sums on residential properties in industrial district, it is likely that developers will make profits by making buildings on those properties because as per the premise waterfront properties were taken by industry and commerce

c)Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
>>> This does not effect property developers profit

d)Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives.
>>> Tax incentives are no where mentioned in premise

e)Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those along the waterfront.
>>> out of scope

KEY is: the waterfront in these cities was never developed aesthetically and instead was left to industry and commerce ==> New residential buildings should be built on the waterfront that used to be industry and commerce districts.

1]People today have more money, relatively speaking, to spend on real estate than they did in previous centuries.
Wrong. Out of scope.

2]Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts.
Correct. A developer can make profit ONLY IF customers are willing to pay for properties used to be industrial or commercial districts. If Customers are not willing to pay, a developer's plan will fail.

3]Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
Wrong. Shell game. What if there are many available lots but nobody wants to buy?

4]Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives.
Wrong. Out of scope.

5]Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those along the waterfront.
Wrong. Out of scope

Hope it helps.

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?

Conc.: To make large profits, a developer should buy WF (earlier for industrial and commerce use) and erect RB on them.
Few assumptions can be:
1. If no such WFs are available for purchase or
2. WFs are available but no purchaser or
3. Purchaser/developer is available but no buyer of build residential properties or
4. Buyers are available but they are not willing to buy RB on earlier used-to-be-industrial/commercial places.

A] People today have more money, relatively speaking, to spend on real estate than they did in previous centuries - OFS
B] Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts - Correct. Buyers are available and they are willing to spend on erstwhile ind./comm. properties
C] Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase - Go with one of assumptions but Option B is more strong as what if lots are available for purchase but no buyer is available ? Hence wrong.
D] Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives - Question talks about profits. What if developer erect property because of great tax-incentive but could not find any buyer for this property ? He will suffer losses.
E] Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those along the waterfront - OFS

Give Kudo if you find my explanation useful......

I've encountered this questions in the second MGMAT CAT. The correct answer here is just restating the portion stated in the question stem (see the hghlited part above)
As many say here that the Info from (D) is not earlier stated in the text and thus (D) is incorrect - I don't agree here, it's a strengthen question, so you can not discard an answer choice because of the new information, actually by this type of questions you have almost always new information that supports the conlusion somehow. It's NOT an Assumption question or "Must be True" Question, in which you can not use new information, which has not be already stated earlier in the text. I don't think that this question resembles the intended logic (real GMAT).

hi,
the para can be rephrased as-
earlier waterfront areas were not thought of as residential areas and thus only industrial and commercial ventures stareted here. However now things have changed and people are willing to pick up houses here.
conclusion property dealers, wanting to make profits, should create houses and earn profit..
Requirement most strongly supports the claim ..

lets see the choices:-

A. People today have more money, relatively speaking, to spend on real estate than they did in previous centuries.
this does not tell us "why in particular waterfront areas should be preferred

B. Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts.
the catch here is traditionally industrial or commercial districts.. these is what waterfront areas fit into...CORRECT

C. Many urban waterfront lots are available for purchase.
It doe snot talk of "PROFIT"

D. Many coastal American cities are encouraging developers to rehabilitate the waterfront through tax incentives.
tax incentives alone cannot transform into large profits

E. Properties in interior residential districts in coastal American cities are significantly more expensive than those along the waterfront
we are not comparing anything..

ans B

chetan2u

I am torn between B & D. Isn't B just a restatement of the premise that we already have the buyer who are ready to pay larger sum. But D gives us the another component of the profit.

Hi diya,

The problem with D is that it talks of MANY and not ALL...
Also tax incentives may not result in huge profit being talked of.

The argument is that developers will be able to make a large profit by residential buildings on urban waterfront lots.
This is supported by the fact that the current perception is that waterfront properties, which are or were used for industrial/ commercial purposes, are prestigious.

We are asked to strengthen/ support this assertion
A is incorrect as it describes people who spend money on real-estate in general now, but this is a relative comparison. The comparison is analogous, incorrectly, to saying more people weigh 80kg today than they did in 1980 and 1970, so more people are overweight. This is incorrect as it could be the case that more people are professional athletes, bodybuilders, or that the average person's height is significantly higher today.

B is correct because is underpins the assumption of the plan. The commercial viability depends on whether homeowners would be willing to live in a previously industrial/ commercial district.
Substitute B into the argument as a premise:
Homeowners will be willing to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial districts. Therefore, developers will be able to make a large profit by residential buildings on urban waterfront lots.

C is incorrect as it doesn't support the argument. It merely states a fact about the present situation.
D is incorrect as this rehabilitation could merely be to fix store fronts or existing commercial properties or other properties. Second, without knowing much about the tax incentive we can't deduce the effect it would have.
E is incorrect as it merely states a price point comparison. It doesn't introduce a reason to go ahead with the plan.

The option B seems to be flawed. It mentions that Homeowners will be likely to spend large sums on residential properties in traditionally industrial or commercial DISTRICTS, not areas. Place A being an industrial district is not the same as Place A being a region/area which was operated by industry or commerce.

Can anyone address this issue?
GMATNinja

Option B is just a restatement of what it says in the argument - "as evidenced by the large sums paid for homes along the beach front. " how does a restatement help in strengthening? A strengthener/weakener will provide outside information to help/destroy the conclusion.

Also in option D, even the option says MANY and not ALL, MANY means majority and hence, this can be a valid strengthener.

Option D should have been correct.

1. We already know that people are paying large sums of money for the houses along beach front.
2. Since a majority of cities are giving tax incentives (savings), it will be wise for the developers to do so.

Exactly THIS. A correct strengthen answer should typically not have an already stated fact. 'Beachfront homes' are supposed to be sold for large sums, so how can an option just restate this? If the stimulus would be something like a 'Beachfront land' or 'Beachfront properties' instead of homes, this question would've made complete GMAT sense.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Saurav

I don't think B is a very good answer. It exhibits redundancy.

The passage already proves the claim that B attempts to strengthen. The passage states that much of the waterfront WAS used by industry. Then it goes on to state that people NOW pay large sums for homes on the waterfront. This very clearly implies that people are NOW willing to spend money on property that WAS industrial/commercial. Hence, B doesn't add heft to the existing argument found in the passage.

The only pushback against my argument that I could conceivably concede is use of the word "much" in the passage. But that surely does not justify this answer choice.

I would be astonished if someone could link me an OG question that has an OA that exhibits this sort of redundancy.

Hi Ozzy11100!
The argument says that 'large sums paid for homes along the beach front' but it is not mentioned whether people will be willing to buy properties close to where industries are currently located. If you notice closely the conclusion is about the 'urban' waterfront, which is the area close to the industries. So somebody who is willing to pay for a waterfront property in general may not be willing to pay for the waterfront area close to the industries.
Does this make sense?

Hey Experts,

KarishmaB

I am confused between B and D. I read your comment regarding why B is better than D i.e. If people don't buy, whatever the cost may be, they may not be able to even recover that. However, it is mentioned in the passage that, "large sums paid for homes along the beach front". How is Option B bringing any new information? Moreover,option B is not referring to coastal areas; it is only talking about industrial and commercial districts.

Basis these 2 arguments and reasoning that P= SP-CP when CP would be low P would increase, I selected option D. Please help me understand gap in my reasoning.

AjiteshArun
ExpertsGlobal5
GMATNinja

Hi experts,

Please do help. I have shared my understanding in the above comment. Thanks in advance!