Recently in City X, developers have stopped buying land, : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 Jan 2017, 16:02

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Recently in City X, developers have stopped buying land,

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 113
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2009, 15:00
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

83% (01:56) correct 17% (01:29) wrong based on 49 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Recently in City X, developers have stopped buying land, contractors have found themselves going without work for longer periods, and banks have issued fewer mortgages. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

A This year several housing blocks have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
B The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.
C Re-sales of condominiums have increased over the past six months.
D The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.
E Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, has remained steady over the past year.

OA is A what is wrong with C?

Answer explains that C is irrelevant - But i was thinking if all the new residents moved to the condominiums - it can also weaken the argument.
_________________

Dream the impossible and do the incredible.

Live. Love. Laugh.

If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1473
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2009, 15:13
babyif19 wrote:
Recently in City X, developers have stopped buying land, contractors have found themselves going without work for longer periods, and banks have issued fewer mortgages. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

A This year several housing blocks have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
B The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.
C Re-sales of condominiums have increased over the past six months.
D The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.
E Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, has remained steady over the past year.

OA is A what is wrong with C?

Answer explains that C is irrelevant - But i was thinking if all the new residents moved to the condominiums - it can also weaken the argument.

There is no new construction. Why isn't there new construction? The reason, fewer people moving to the cities. Flaw, there must be some other reason for the lack of construction. Maybe because the inventory increased, such as in A. Re-sale of condominiums does not explain the lack of new construction. Re-sale means the same condominiums are being sold. But to whom? Where are those people going. Maybe new people are buying condominiums but we know nothing about condominium construction. What if condominium construction stays the same? People either move out or buy houses. But, we know nothing about people moving out. Maybe those people are already buying existing houses or new houses on the market. Again, leading back to A.

Just my take.
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 225
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 256 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2009, 03:49
A This year several housing blocks have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
- If several housing blocks are in the market, meaning more supply of houses into the market and taking care of the demand with less need for new construction. By showing a alternative reason, the flaw is exposed.

babyif19 wrote:
Answer explains that C is irrelevant - But i was thinking if all the new residents moved to the condominiums - it can also weaken the argument.

Resale means no new supply. And the resale condominiums could only change hands amongst the present residents. supporting the authors assertion that fewer new residents moved to City X
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 224
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2009, 08:02
A This year several housing blocks have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
- If several housing blocks are in the market, meaning more supply of houses into the market and taking care of the demand with less need for new construction. By showing a alternative reason, the flaw is exposed.

babyif19 wrote:
Answer explains that C is irrelevant - But i was thinking if all the new residents moved to the condominiums - it can also weaken the argument.

Resale means no new supply. And the resale condominiums could only change hands amongst the present residents. supporting the authors assertion that fewer new residents moved to City X

Why does resale mean that the condominiums can only change hands amongst the present residents? Some of the old residents can move out and new ones move in, right? The question never specifies who the condos need to be resold to. I also doesn't state that new residents have to move in without old residents moving out.

I think this is just a poorly phrased question. It's from MGMAT, right? Their exams are decent, but there are some dubious questions. For the OG, I've never seen an answer explanation that makes me doubt it's correctness.

Last edited by 11MBA on 09 Dec 2009, 08:16, edited 1 time in total.
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1473
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2009, 08:08
11MBA wrote:
A This year several housing blocks have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
- If several housing blocks are in the market, meaning more supply of houses into the market and taking care of the demand with less need for new construction. By showing a alternative reason, the flaw is exposed.

babyif19 wrote:
Answer explains that C is irrelevant - But i was thinking if all the new residents moved to the condominiums - it can also weaken the argument.

Resale means no new supply. And the resale condominiums could only change hands amongst the present residents. supporting the authors assertion that fewer new residents moved to City X

Why does resale mean that the condominiums can only change hands amongst the present residents? Some of the old residents can move out and new ones move in, right? The question never specifies who the condos are resold, too. It also doesn't

I think this is just a poorly phrased question. It's from MGMAT, right? Their exams are decent, but there are some dubious questions. For the OG, I've never seen an answer explanation that makes me doubt it's correctness.

I would have to agree, sounds like MGMAT
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 225
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 256 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2009, 23:18
11MBA wrote:
A This year several housing blocks have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
- If several housing blocks are in the market, meaning more supply of houses into the market and taking care of the demand with less need for new construction. By showing a alternative reason, the flaw is exposed.

babyif19 wrote:
Answer explains that C is irrelevant - But i was thinking if all the new residents moved to the condominiums - it can also weaken the argument.

Resale means no new supply. And the resale condominiums could only change hands amongst the present residents. supporting the authors assertion that fewer new residents moved to City X

Why does resale mean that the condominiums can only change hands amongst the present residents? Some of the old residents can move out and new ones move in, right? The question never specifies who the condos need to be resold to. I also doesn't state that new residents have to move in without old residents moving out.

I think this is just a poorly phrased question. It's from MGMAT, right? Their exams are decent, but there are some dubious questions. For the OG, I've never seen an answer explanation that makes me doubt it's correctness.

Resale doesn’t only have to be old residents moving out and new ones moving in. It also can mean old residents selling their condominiums in one part of the city and then moving to a different part of the city by buying another condominiums at different location. The first scenario weaken the authors argument, while the second scenario strengthens the argument. As there is an ambiguity the choice is better discarded.

But Choice A gives a situation, where it is hard to arrive at the authors conclusion. Hence the answer.
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 224
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2009, 07:14
Can't the same logic be applied to new developments then? Old residents can just move out of their old homes and into new ones, and resale their old homes to people already living in the community? I definitely agree that choice C is more ambiguous than A, and on the MGMAT exam I remember picking A for that reason, but this is just a bad question, in my opinion.
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 225
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 256 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2009, 07:25
11MBA wrote:
Can't the same logic be applied to new developments then? Old residents can just move out of their old homes and into new ones, and resale their old homes to people already living in the community? I definitely agree that choice C is more ambiguous than A, and on the MGMAT exam I remember picking A for that reason, but this is just a bad question, in my opinion.

Yes I agree with you
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1353
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

15 May 2011, 05:28
tricky question indeed.
between A and C, I took out C just because if new people are moving into the city they may not go for resales of the condominiums and buy a new house instead.

However, tough call indeed.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Manager
Status: Completed GMAT on 22 Nov 2011
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 167
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2011, 22:57
Easy one...Clean A
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 70
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2013, 23:03
The conclusion of the argument is that "there must be fewer new residents
moving to City X than there were previously." Why? Because of several observed
factors (e.g., developers not buying land, contractors without work, banks issuing
fewer mortgages) that the author assumes result from the fewer people trying to
buy new homes. We are asked to find a flaw in the reasoning of this argument.
(A) CORRECT. This suggests that there might be another reason for the decline
in home construction: the supply of available housing has been increased
through the release of many previously built homes. Therefore, the reasoning in
the argument is flawed.
(B) The size of homes, by itself, does not point to any flaw in the argument.
(C) The argument centers on new homes, so re-sales of condominiums are not
directly related.
(D) If materials cost less, it seems more likely that any decrease in new home
construction could be attributed to the stated causes.
(E) Sales of cars and boats are not related to construction of new homes
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 147
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 184 [0], given: 37

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2013, 06:31
C. Re-sales of condominiums have increased over the past six months.--> if this was true, mortgages would not have decreased.

A. says influx of ppl hasnt decreased because they are finally moving in the house since no legal issues exists now
_________________

Please give Kudos if you like the post

Re: Recently in City X, developers have stopped buying land,   [#permalink] 07 Oct 2013, 06:31
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Weaken Revision: Recently in City X, developers have stopped 3 18 Feb 2015, 23:03
15 Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped 10 23 Sep 2012, 10:54
3 Recently in City X, developers have stopped buying land, 11 11 Aug 2009, 06:07
The newly renovated housing development in city X is 6 01 Dec 2007, 05:41
Recently in City X, developers have stopped buying land, 6 03 Sep 2007, 13:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by