GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Oct 2019, 10:22

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Current Student
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4263
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2015, 06:47
3
21
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (02:37) correct 37% (02:41) wrong based on 644 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative scarcity of housing in a particular market leads to larger than normal increases in price. During the late 1990s, according to the analyst's report, occupancy rates-a measure of the percentage of housing occupied at a given time-in crowded urban markets such as New York and San Francisco hovered around 99.5%. During the same period, housing prices increased by as much as 100% per year, compared to more normal past increases in the range of 5% to 15% per year. Which of the following is an assumption that supports the analyst's assertion?


A. In the housing market, there generally must be at least five buyers per seller in order to cause larger than normal increases in price.

B. Increases in demand often reflect an influx of new buyers into the marketplace or an unusual increase in buying power on the part of the customer.

C. The U.S. housing market showed a larger than average increase in the 1990s across the country, not just in crowded urban areas.

D. Price increases do not cause people to withhold their houses from the market in the hopes that prices will increase even further in the future.

E. A significant rise in housing prices in a specific area may cause some potential buyers to relocate to other, less pricey areas.

_________________
Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2015, 15:51
7
3
Radhika11 wrote:
Can someone explain why C is wrong here ?
OA is D


Hello Radhika11

In this question we have cause and effect situation: scarcity of selling houses lead to price increase.
Usually when we have such cuase-effect situation in argument, we should find an assumption that ensure that effect doesn't cause "cause" or that effect doesn't have another cause.
In this argument possible another scenario: prices go up and people with houses decide not to sell them and this lead to deficit of houses. And this is ruin conclusion of analytic: "analyst asserted that the relative scarcity of housing leads to larger than normal increases in price."
Answer D ensure that this variant doesn't has place in our situation.

Answer C is wrong because it says that in other regions, which doesn't have scarcity, prices go up to. So this answer weaken conclusion of analytic, because there is another reason why prices go up.
_________________
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Birds fly because they have wings, not because they have sky.
Joined: 21 Sep 2014
Posts: 208
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2015, 10:00
3
1
Cause and Effect analysis of the argument states that Scarcity causes rise in Price. Now if the assumption in option D is negated, the situation becomes Price rise causes scarcity and the argument falls flat. D should be the answer.
_________________
Regards,
J

--------------------------------------------------
Consider Kudos if I helped in some way!!!

Perseverance is the hard work you do after you get tired of doing the hard work you already did.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2013
Posts: 199
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2015, 12:01
1
Tough call between B and C. Will go with C.

souvik101990 wrote:
An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative scarcity of housing in a particular market leads to larger than normal increases in price. During the late 1990s, according to the analyst's report, occupancy rates-a measure of the percentage of housing occupied at a given time-in crowded urban markets such as New York and San Francisco hovered around 99.5%. During the same period, housing prices increased by as much as 100% per year, compared to more normal past increases in the range of 5% to 15% per year. Which of the following is an assumption that supports the analyst's assertion?

A. In the housing market, there generally must be at least five buyers per seller in order to cause larger than normal increases in price.

B. Increases in demand often reflect an influx of new buyers into the marketplace or an unusual increase in buying power on the part of the customer.

C. The U.S. housing market showed a larger than average increase in the 1990s across the country, not just in crowded urban areas.

D. Price increases do not cause people to withhold their houses from the market in the hopes that prices will increase even further in the future.

E. A significant rise in housing prices in a specific area may cause some potential buyers to relocate to other, less pricey areas.

_________________
Kudos to you, for helping me with some KUDOS.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2014
Posts: 38
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2015, 04:24
1
I posted answer to this question yesterday , but I do not see my post. :(
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 33
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2015, 14:02
Can someone explain why C is wrong here ?
OA is D
Current Student
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4263
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 May 2015, 16:04
The question stem asks you to determine the answer choice that damages the city council's plan. Since the conclusion states that the city's finances are not negatively affected, we know that in the right answer, the city's finances MUST be negatively affected in some way. This is seen in 'C'. So you have to look at the conclusion.
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 22 Sep 2018
Posts: 240
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2018, 23:31
souvik101990 wrote:
An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative scarcity of housing in a particular market leads to larger than normal increases in price. During the late 1990s, according to the analyst's report, occupancy rates-a measure of the percentage of housing occupied at a given time-in crowded urban markets such as New York and San Francisco hovered around 99.5%. During the same period, housing prices increased by as much as 100% per year, compared to more normal past increases in the range of 5% to 15% per year. Which of the following is an assumption that supports the analyst's assertion?

A. In the housing market, there generally must be at least five buyers per seller in order to cause larger than normal increases in price.

B. Increases in demand often reflect an influx of new buyers into the marketplace or an unusual increase in buying power on the part of the customer.

C. The U.S. housing market showed a larger than average increase in the 1990s across the country, not just in crowded urban areas.

D. Price increases do not cause people to withhold their houses from the market in the hopes that prices will increase even further in the future.

E. A significant rise in housing prices in a specific area may cause some potential buyers to relocate to other, less pricey areas.


TOUGH question, it really makes you think.

A) not sure how this is relevant
B) this is simply a definition of demand. This does not help our argument.
C) We're talking about particular markets not the entire housing market.
D) CORRECT. The issue in the stem is whether it is truly a scarcity that is causing the price to increase. What if there wasn't a scarcity of housing and home owners were just unwilling to sell that caused the supply to drop and the price to increase? This answers that concern.
E) irrelevant
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Oct 2018
Posts: 45
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.9
Reviews Badge
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Feb 2019, 01:55
This one is really tough, it took me quit a while. A didn’t take long to eliminate, of course, since it is completely irrelevant. B isn’t an assumption at all, its just the definition of demand. C introduces additional information, we are not talking about the US housing market. E is also irrelevant. So, D is the correct answer. The weakness in the original argument is that there is another reason, besides scarcity, that could cause the price increase. People might just not be selling their houses. D, however, tells us that is not the case. This removes a potential ambiguity.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc   [#permalink] 13 Feb 2019, 01:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by

An industry analyst asserted in his recent report that the relative sc

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne