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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
In Episode 7 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we are rounding up the oddballs, the misfits, and the format-benders: EXCEPT, Fill-In-The-Blanks, and other unusual Critical Reasoning question types. When you see a question that ends with a literal blank line
For most test takers, Data Insights is the most challenging section on the GMAT, with test takers scoring several points lower on average on DI than on Quant or Verbal and completing the section with less time to spare.
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
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.
Can anyone please explain why is option "B" wrong??
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
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.
Can anyone please explain why is option "B" wrong??
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.