Due to the recent boom in the housing market, home prices have risen

My 2 cents:
conclusion:++ home ownership >> New legis to include the current asking price(which was lower than the unlisted houses got sold to owners.)

Prethinking:(NEW INFO )
1. less ppl to show up as previously ppl got better deals without the new regulations.thereby decreasing the HO.

Choices:
1. less visits less HO(keep it)
2.premise itself dont show the correlation of --HO. OUT
3. This talks about other regulation facilitating HO but we dont the effect can be positive or negative. OUT
4. OOS
5. Trap. More harm than Good of what is it talking abt the HO or the possession duration or the amenities bla bla... OUT

A is the best possible answer.

Hope your preparation is going well.
Anything that would undermine the plan of implementing the new legislation would be considered the right answer.

A. (correct) the purpose of this argument is to facilitate home ownership by proposing a new legislation. This statement undermines the argument as it suggests that this regulation will reduce home showings which will, in turn, reduce the number of homes being bought. Thus ownership will also reduce which opposes the purpose.
B. This statement strengthens the argument as it suggests that homes listed with asking prices are sold at lower values. These lower values will increase the number of potential buyers thus increasing homeownership.
C. There's nothing that mentions about the current legislation regarding the inclusion of the then current asking price.
D. This statement is out of scope since there's no real estate agent.
E. This statement is irrelevant and nothing can be inferred from it.
Hope this helps.
Keep practicing!!
PythaGURUS Faculty Team

IMO B ,


the "listing with asking price will reduce the prices" is the main cause for new legislation


Option B is saying the same effect even without legislation , so we may even not need the new legislation at all .



Award kudos if helpful

Posted from my mobile device

It is a "Cause and Effect" type of argument.

so, weakening strategies are usually either:
1. introducing another causes of Y
2. proving that the X and Y are coincidental
3. showing that Y causes X (reversed cause and effect)

premise:
1. rise in real estate prices
2. no ask price regulations.
3. homes listed with price are sold more

Conclusion:
* homes listed with asking price (X) -------> foster competition -------> reduce price (Y) -----> savings for home buyers



A. The proposed regulation would most likely result in fewer home showings because potential buyers might restrict their visits to homes within their budgetary constraints.
Out of scope: we are not concerned with number of homes showing, but concerned with lower the price of homes.

B. Currently, homes listed with asking prices are generally appraised at lower values than homes listed without.
Introducing another causes of Y: showing that the reason for more selling is NOT because of the listing, but because of the already low price offered.

C. There have been several recently imposed regulations aimed at facilitating home ownership.
irrelevant: the presence of other regulations doesn't mean that new regulations would not be effective

D. Often, the determining factor in whether or not a listing includes an asking price is simply the real estate agent's preference.
it can be strengthening, not weakening, because regulation would reduce the influence of the real estate agents on the price and lower it.

E. The proposed legislation would impede on the operation of a free market and ultimately cause more harm than good.
irrelevant: regulation may or may not cause harm is not the case. It is not discussing its effect on the price.

Conclusion: Include asking price (through legislation) ----> facilitate home ownership.

A. The proposed regulation would most likely result in fewer home showings because potential buyers might restrict their visits to homes within their budgetary constraints.
- Legislation ---> Fewer home showings----> lower number of prospective buyers--->lower number of home sold----> legislation does not facilitate (or increase) home ownership.

Hence, (A) is the right answer.

B. Currently, homes listed with asking prices are generally appraised at lower values than homes listed without. - Irrelevant to the conclusion drawn. hence, eliminate (B)

C. There have been several recently imposed regulations aimed at facilitating home ownership. - Does not weaken the conclusion. hence, eliminate (C).

D. Often, determining factor in whether or not a listing includes an asking price is simply the real estate agent's preference. - the real estate agent's "preference" does nothing to weaken the conclusion. Hence, eliminate (D)

E. The proposed legislation would impede the operation of a free market and ultimately cause more harm than good. - What kind of harm would this result in? Would this harm result in lower home ownership? Since (E) leaves a lot of room for doubt, eliminate (E).

in option B currently is mentioned . i guess it weaken conclusion which is based on survey that listing decreases price but in fact they were already of low values houses. Expert please explain my reasoning ???

Hi,
Let's dissect this argument:
1. The first two sentences establish the correlation: Listed price->Better sales of homes and subsequent ownership
2. The next sentence tells us that since listing the price would lead to better sale, we need to have it. In other words, the argument shows a causal relationship.
3. In order to weaken this , we can: 1. Show reverse causality,2. Show a counter example :"Oh, maybe not all but a few houses that have listed prices fetch sales" or 3. Check for an alternate cause : "Maybe there is something else that determines the increase in sales , not just the list price."
4.Now let's dive in to the options:
Option A == This is showing a counterexample. Keep this.
Option B == This is in fact, strengthening the argument
Option C == This is really weak. So just because we have regulations, does that mean our gap is widened?No! Regulations won't help in establishing this.
Option D == This is more factual. Ok, so what do you mean? This is simply out of the passage. Leave it.
Option E == This philosophy is tempting. But does this talk about the relationship between listed prices and sales? All that it's trying to say is that the market will get hurt. Now many things can happen here. What do you mean by it impedes the operation of the free market? This leads to some ambiguity .. Is housing a free market in this country? .. etc

Here A is the best answer.

Hope this helps!!

Home prices have increased. Many working people are unable to buy.
No regulations requiring asking price,
A survey determined that homes listed with prices eventually sold for amounts substantially lower than homes that were listed without prices.
Clearly, the listings with asking prices foster competition among one another that results in savings for the home buyer.

Conclusion: To facilitate home ownership, I propose new legislation requiring real estate listings to include a current asking price.

Here is what the argument is saying - Houses have become expensive. When asking price is listed, it led to competition among the houses with listed asking prices and hence the asking price reduced.
Say two houses are both listed at 500k. A buyer checks them both out. The owner A decides to go down to 490k. Owner B decides to go down to 480k and so on.
This competition does not take place when asking price is hidden.
So the argument says that listed asking price should become mandatory. That will facilitate home ownership because more people will be able to buy houses if price comes down.

We need to weaken it.

A. The proposed regulation would most likely result in fewer home showings because potential buyers might restrict their visits to homes within their budgetary constraints.

If prices are listed, people will check out fewer houses. Then the competition may not play out. Hence it may not facilitate home ownership. Weakens the conclusion.

B. Currently, homes listed with asking prices are generally appraised at lower values than homes listed without.

Homes with listed asking prices are appraised at a lower value currently (perhaps because they know that competition will pull down the pricing). Here is the point - we don't know how appraised value impacts actual transaction price. We also don't know how appraised value will change if all homes have listed asking prices. In option (A) we are given that people will check out fewer houses so we know what to expect and hence it weakens our argument. In this option, we don't know how appraised value and transaction value will change if the legislature is enacted.

C. There have been several recently imposed regulations aimed at facilitating home ownership.

Irrelevant.

D. Often, determining factor in whether or not a listing includes an asking price is simply the real estate agent's preference.

Irrelevant.

E. The proposed legislation would impede the operation of a free market and ultimately cause more harm than good.

More harm than good doesn't tell us how. Our aim is to facilitate home ownership. Will more people buy homes? If yes, then our aim is met even if it involves harm in some other ways.

Answer (A)

Official Explanation

The goal of the legislation is to facilitate home ownership by lowering the price of real estate. The fact that it may result in fewer home showings is insignificant.

Choice A is incorrect. Choices C & D are also immaterial. Choice E could be considered a valid argument against the proposed legislation, but it is vague and choice B offers a much better argument.

Choice B directly counters the conclusion in the passage upon which the proposed legislation was based. Specifically, choice B suggests that listings with asking prices are already valued lower than listings without and this fact explains the results of the consumer survey. Thus, the author's conclusion that listings with prices foster competition and result in a lower sale price is contradicted.

Answer: B