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:
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0%
(00:00)
correct 0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 8
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.