12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 10: Under the zoning laws

This problem presents a scenario where a property developer needs to take action to minimize the impact of anticipated height restrictions on future project profitability.

Let's analyze each option to determine which would be most effective:

A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect.
This option doesn't directly address the problem. Demolishing shorter buildings after restrictions are in place wouldn't allow for taller buildings to be constructed, as the new restrictions would still apply.

B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor.
While this might help control costs, it doesn't address the primary issue of height restrictions and maximizing the number of units per building.

C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises.
Faster construction doesn't solve the problem of height restrictions. Once the restrictions are in place, building speed won't affect the allowed height.

D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions
This is the most effective option. By constructing taller buildings now, before the restrictions are implemented, the developer can:

* Maximize the number of units per building, increasing profitability

* Set a higher baseline for future height restrictions, as new limits will be based on a percentage of existing building heights

* Ensure that these taller buildings will be grandfathered in under the old regulations, allowing them to remain even after new restrictions are imposed

E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby again
This option is incomplete, but even if it meant lobbying against the restrictions, its not as immediately effective as option D. Lobbying efforts may not succeed, and they don't guarantee any tangible results in the short term.

Therefore, the most effective course of action for the developer to take now is option D: Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions. This proactive approach allows the developer to maximize profitability before the new regulations take effect and potentially influence future height restrictions in their favor.

The answer is option C .

We need to find an answer that would help the building developers to maximize their profit before the restrictions are in place.

(A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect. --> why to demolish the shorter buildings when the problem is with the taller ones. And that will not help maintaining our profits.

(B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor. --> This weakens as having long term contract might hurt the builder as the regulations takes effect.

(C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises. --> Building before the regulations take place in effect would be the most effective way to improve the profits.

(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions --> Our argument is about what will happen if the regulation takes place, not what can be done currently where there is no height restrictions.

(E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions. --> out of scope.

Goal: Minimize impact on future profitability given likely height restrictions based on existing building heights.

(A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect.
Demolishing shorter buildings would not directly increase the profitability of future projects unless the developer can replace them with taller ones => Eliminate

(B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor.
Doesn't address the height limitation impact. Fixed costs for construction materials and labor could reduce costs in the future, but this action does not address the central issue: the height restrictions limiting building sizes => Eliminate

(C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises.
Faster construction might allow the developer to complete projects before restrictions are enacted. However, this does not address how to maximize profitability in the long term after restrictions are in place => Eliminate

(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions.
By developing taller buildings now, the developer could establish a higher baseline for future construction in the area, as height restrictions are expected to depend on the heights of existing buildings. This can counteract the negative impact of the restrictions on profitability, allowing for taller buildings and more rentable units in the future. => Keep

(E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions.
While lobbying might delay or prevent restrictions, there is no guarantee of success, as the restrictions are described as "inevitable." Uncertain outcome and temporary solution => Eliminate

Thus Option D is most effective because:
- Building taller buildings now would set higher baseline heights in their areas
- Future restrictions would be based on these taller buildings
- This allows greater heights (and thus more units/profit) in future projects

Answer: D

(A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect.

Here, the root cause of the problem is being eliminated. Hence suitable choice.

(B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor.

Profit concerning height is a matter of concern, hence this is irrelevant in this context.

(C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises.

Construciton time is not any constraint here, hence irrelevant choice.

(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions

property developers in Metropolitan City are concerned, this is the area we are not concerned with, irrelevant.

(E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions.

We don't predict the outcome of this move. Hence cannot be the solution.

(A) Demolition would also have some cost since we don't know if ppl are residing in the older, shorter buildings too or not, hence it would be detrimental to the profits.
(B) The cost price does get fixed with this but the selling price depends on the number of units made which would anyway decrease given the new restrictions are imposed.
(C) Speed of construction doesn't matter here
(D) Doing so, if possible would increase the average height in the city hence allow for more heights since height is limited to certain percentage of pre-existing building.
(E) This is a very subjective opinion since its not necessary that all developers are high-rise developers, or have the capital to do so.

Hence D

council will soon impose height restrictions on new buildings, limiting them to a percentage of the height of existing buildings in their vicinity.

i.e. the law has not yet passed. And when it is passed it will still allows to build new building based on the heights of the buildings in their vicinity.

So if a developer build very tall builds in the areas with no restrictions now, he will be able to build relatively higher building in the future as well.

Hence option D is the correct answer

Under the zoning laws of Metropolitan City, property developers are allowed to build residential high-rises with no height restrictions, allowing them to maximize the number of units per building. As developers rent individual units, the more units in a building, the more profitable it is. However, due to growing concerns about cityscape aesthetics and sunlight blockage, it seems inevitable that the city council will soon impose height restrictions on new buildings, limiting them to a percentage of the height of existing buildings in their vicinity.

Given this, it would be beneficial to have taller buildings, so that the height (post restrictions) can be maximised.

(A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect. This looks like an appropriate strategy, though short term it might be a loss, but would help to minimize the impact on the profitability of future projects due to the anticipated height restrictions
(B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor. - Cost doesn't seem like a concern of the argument
(C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises. - Time doesn't seem like a concern of the argument
(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions - This might help with overall profit but won't help minimise impact on profitability of future projects due to the anticipated height restrictions (in those areas)
(E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions. - Doesn't seem logical, could involve more costs and might be helpful. Not a strong strategy

was not sure between A and D but picked D because there A wont work in case the cost of demolition is high whereas D works better because developer can act now build high buildings and reap the profits eventually

To identify the most effective course of action, let’s evaluate each option in light of the developer’s goal: minimizing the impact of anticipated height restrictions on future project profitability.

(A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect
Demolishing shorter buildings after restrictions are imposed would allow the developer to potentially replace them with taller ones (up to the restricted height).
However, this action is reactive, occurring only after restrictions are imposed, and does not mitigate the immediate profitability loss due to height restrictions on future projects.
Not proactive enough to minimize impact now.

(B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor
Locking in costs might help reduce future construction expenses, but it does not address the core issue of height restrictions directly affecting profitability.
While useful for cost control, this does not solve the profitability loss due to lower unit capacity per building.
Unrelated to height restrictions.

(C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises
Faster construction could improve turnaround times and potentially allow the developer to complete projects quickly before height restrictions take effect.
While this could be beneficial, it depends heavily on how soon restrictions will be imposed. Without clarity on timing, the benefit is uncertain.
Not the most direct solution.

(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions
By acting now to build taller high-rises where there are no restrictions, the developer maximizes the number of units before height restrictions are imposed.
These taller buildings would set a higher benchmark for the "existing buildings in their vicinity," thereby increasing the potential height limits for future developments even if restrictions are imposed.
This directly mitigates the impact of future restrictions and is proactive.

(E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions
Lobbying could potentially prevent or delay height restrictions. However, this outcome is uncertain and depends on regulatory decisions that may not favor developers.
Even if lobbying succeeds temporarily, the threat of restrictions in the future would persist.
A risky and uncertain strategy.

Best Option:
The most effective and proactive action is (D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions, as it directly addresses the profitability concern by maximizing unit capacity before restrictions take effect and influencing future height limits in restricted areas.

Answer: (D).

A. What if the height limits on new projects come out to lead to a construction of much shorter building than now to comply? The builder will be making a loss then. INCORRECT

B. What if the costs in future go down? The builder will still have to pay the costs agreed upon now - leading to a loss. INCORRECT

C. Speed alone may not sufficiently address the profitability issue if future projects are still limited by height restrictions. INCORRECT

D. By building several taller buildings now, the developer ensures that future height restrictions allow for relatively taller buildings compared to areas where the benchmark is lower. This allows for larger future projects and maintains higher profitability potential in the long term. CORRECT

E. While this could potentially prevent or delay the restrictions, it is uncertain whether lobbying efforts will succeed. INCORRECT

Answer D.

The question asks to minimize the impact on the profitability of future projects due to the anticipated height restrictions. If the developer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the developer do now?

(A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect. Demolition and again building too much cost. Eliminate
(B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor. What if costs decrease in future. Eliminate
(C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises. Efficiency increases if the technology is successful, but doesn't talk about height restriction. Eliminate
(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions. This says that build taller building in areas currently without restrictions, the future law will restrict new building but not the old building already constructed. Correct
(E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions. May or may not work to stop those restrictions. Eliminate

Question type:

Evaluate Argument

Answer choice analysis:

A. Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect.

Incorrect, This might help raise the average height of buildings in the area but it doesn’t proactively address the developer's need to maximize current opportunities.

B. Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor.

Incorrect, this is irrelevant as it doesn’t directly address the issue of height restrictions.

C. Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises.

Incorrect, Irrelevant this doesn’t directly mitigate the issue of height restrictions or ensure taller buildings are constructed before restrictions take effect.


D. Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions

Correct. If height restrictions are likely to be imposed as a percentage of the height of existing buildings in the vicinity, developing taller buildings now establishes a higher baseline for future restrictions.

E. Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions.

Incorrect. Lobbying takes time and depends on factors beyond control of the developer It’s not as immediate or actionable as building taller structures now.

D is the answer

A: Demolishing the older, shorter buildings will not have any impact on the future project's profitability. Rejected.
B: We are only told about the profitability through rental income. We are not sure if construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor will be equally profitable. Rejected
C: If the developers are able to use new technologies and complete the construction of high rises even before the new laws are imposed, they can Take the benefits of more units in a building. Accepted
D: This also seems to be a logical point. The only challenge being the assumption if the developer will be able to complete all the new building before the new law is being imposed. Rejected.
E: Just by creating a lobby against the imposition, it is highly unlikely the government will change its stance. Rejected.

(A) This could be a costly strategy, and would not lead to increased profits - Incorrect

(B) This could potentially reduce costs but does not talk about the impact of height restrictions on profits - Incorrect

(C) Faster construction can increase efficiency but does nothing for profitability - Incorrect

(D) Constructing tall buildings in unrestricted areas will maximize profits by increasing the number of units - Correct

(E) This could delay the restrictions but doesn't guarantee anything - Incorrect

To minimize the impact on the profitability of future projects due to anticipated height restrictions, the property developer should choose the course of action that directly addresses the restriction's impact: limits on building heights based on the height of existing buildings in the vicinity. The goal is to maximize profitability before restrictions are imposed or mitigate the restrictions' effects.


(A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect.
While demolishing shorter buildings could increase the average height in an area and potentially offset height restrictions, it is reactive rather than proactive. It does not help maximize profitability before restrictions are imposed.
Not the most effective course of action.

(B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor.
This addresses cost control rather than the height restriction issue. While it might marginally impact profitability, it does not address the primary concern: height limits affecting unit numbers and revenue.
Not directly relevant.

(C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises.
Faster construction could enable the developer to complete projects before restrictions are enacted, potentially reducing the impact of the restrictions. However, the restrictions might still apply to new projects initiated after the law is passed, limiting this option's effectiveness. Moderately effective but not the most impactful.

(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions.
This is the most effective option. By constructing taller buildings before the restrictions take effect, the developer can maximize the number of units and profitability from those buildings. Additionally, these taller structures could serve as benchmarks for the maximum allowable height of future buildings in the vicinity, helping mitigate the impact of the height restrictions on subsequent projects.
Highly effective.

(E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions.
While lobbying could potentially delay or prevent the restrictions, it is uncertain and not within the developer's immediate control. Given the inevitability of the restrictions, this is not a guaranteed or proactive solution.
Less reliable.

Conclusion:
The most effective course of action for the developer is (D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions. This approach allows the developer to maximize profitability and potentially mitigate the future impact of height restrictions.
Final Answer: D

IMO D

To determine the most effective course of action for the property developer in Metropolitan City, it's essential to consider the potential impact of each option on mitigating the anticipated height restrictions and maximizing profitability. Let's analyze each option:

(A) Plan to demolish older, shorter buildings in their portfolio if the restrictions take effect.

This option could be beneficial if the developer can replace shorter buildings with taller ones before the restrictions are imposed. However, it is reactive rather than proactive and may not address the immediate concern of maximizing the number of units before restrictions take effect.
(B) Secure long-term construction contracts at fixed costs for materials and labor.

While this option can help control costs and ensure budget stability, it does not directly address the issue of height restrictions. It is more about cost management rather than maximizing the number of units or profitability in the face of new regulations.
(C) Invest in building technologies that allow for faster construction of high-rises.

Faster construction technologies can help the developer complete more projects before any height restrictions are imposed. This proactive approach can be beneficial in maximizing the number of units built under the current regulations.
(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions.

This option directly addresses the concern of height restrictions by taking advantage of the current lack of restrictions. By developing taller buildings now, the developer can maximize the number of units and profitability before any new regulations are implemented.
(E) Collaborate with other developers to lobby against the imposition of height restrictions.

Lobbying against the imposition of height restrictions could potentially delay or prevent the new regulations. However, this is uncertain and may not yield immediate results. It is a strategic approach but carries a risk if the lobbying efforts are unsuccessful.
Considering the analysis, the most effective course of action appears to be:

(D) Develop several taller buildings in areas currently without height restrictions.

This option allows the developer to maximize the number of units and profitability before any new height restrictions are imposed, directly addressing the anticipated regulatory changes in a proactive manner.

The developer wants to maximise the profits and minimize the impact on profits of FUTURE PROJECTS due to ANTICIPATED height restrictions.

A - If he demolishes older buildings, we don't know how many homes will be demolished. Maybe they will be more than what he plans to make. ELIMINATE

B - Material and labor costs are not told to be increasing. This will have no effect on profits. ELIMINATE

C - Doesn't matter faster or slower construction, main point is whether or not we will be allowed to construct a high rise and earn profit. ELIMINATE

D - If he develops several taller buildings in the area, the proposed plan to impose height restriction in relativity to the neighbouring buildings might prove to be advantageous of him. As now, since we already have taller buildings in neighborhood, we can create this one as well. KEEP

E - This is not a sure shot solution. The lobbying MIGHT prove to be fruitful, might not. ELIMINATE

FINAL ANSWER - Option D