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

It is currently 20 Oct 2019, 04:29

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

In many states landowners may make use

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Apr 2016
Posts: 19
In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 May 2016, 10:24
1
32
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (02:30) correct 54% (02:51) wrong based on 727 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In many states landowners may make use of a conservation easement, a legal agreement that restricts the use of land. A landowner can donate an easement to a land trust, which amounts to a charitable donation equal to the difference between the market value of the land and its value under the easement restrictions. Normally, owners of unused farmland and other undeveloped property are often under market pressure to sell to developers, who can offer much more for it than could be made from renting the property. These owners should take advantage of conservation easements to prevent unwanted development.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Some land trusts are for-profit enterprises that buy and sell properties whose use is restricted.
(B) Land donated using an easement is usually located in areas with very low population density.
(C) Some landowners are able to split up their properties such that part of the land is donated to a trust and the rest continues to earn rents for the owner.
(D) Most property owners can make more money by renting their property than by donating an easement and taking the corresponding tax benefits.
(E) When land use is restricted, the value of surrounding unrestricted land rises.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Posts: 67
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Premium Member CAT Tests
In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2019, 05:17
9
prags1989 wrote:
I am unable to understand the stimuli. What actually we are looking for Rakesh1987


prags1989

Concentrate on these lines: "Normally, owners of unused farmland and other undeveloped property are often under market pressure to sell to developers, who can offer much more for it than could be made from renting the property. These owners should take advantage of conservation easements to prevent unwanted development. " We have to weaken the conclusion that is "These owners should take advantage of conservation easements to prevent unwanted development. "

If an owner of unused farmland is need of funds he can do either of the three
    1. Rent it (R)
    2. Sell to developer (S)
    3. Register the land under conservation easement and avail of tax benefit on deemed donation (E)

Apart from the unwanted development, we have two choices R and E. Conclusion says that owners of farmland should go for E instead of R, here inherent assumption is that E>R.


Answer choice D says that R>E for most homeowners. Therefore it weakens the conclusion.

Lets evaluate other answer choices as well:
(A) Some land trusts are for-profit enterprises that buy and sell properties whose use is restricted. - Irrelevant, we are not concerned whether the trust is for profit or not for profit.
(B) Land donated using an easement is usually located in areas with very low population density. - Irrelevant. So the developer might not be interested in the land, anyways the landowners were not selling it to the developer. It doesn't say whether conservative easement will give more revenues than renting, the question of our interest.
(C) Some landowners are able to split up their properties such that part of the land is donated to a trust and the rest continues to earn rents for the owner. - Irrelevant. whether they can split and do both doesn't tell us whether conservation easement is better than renting
(D) Most property owners can make more money by renting their property than by donating an easement and taking the corresponding tax benefits.- Answer. Explained above
(E) When land use is restricted, the value of surrounding unrestricted land rises.- We are concerned about the land in question not its surrounding land.

Please hit +1 Kudos if you liked the explanation :cool:
General Discussion
Marshall & McDonough Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1684
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 May 2016, 11:28
2
Premise: Land owners make a legal agreement that restricts that the use of land.
Owners of unused lands are under pressure to sell to developers. Owners get more money if the land is sold to developers.

Conclusion: Owners should make use of the easement (legal agreements) to prevent unwanted developments.

Possible Weakener: Legal agreements that restrict the land use are not beneficial to owners.

(A) Some land trusts are for-profit enterprises that buy and sell properties whose use is restricted. - Incorrect - 'Some land trusts are for profit enterprises.' Others may be genuine.

(B) Land donated using an easement is usually located in areas with very low population density. - Incorrect - Irrelevant

(C) Some landowners are able to split up their properties such that part of the land is donated to a trust and the rest continues to earn rents for the owner. - Incorrect - Has no effect on the conclusion.

(D) Most property owners can make more money by renting their property than by donating an easement and taking the corresponding tax benefits. - Correct

(E) When land use is restricted, the value of surrounding unrestricted land rises. - Incorrect - Irrelevant. We are not bothered about the rise in value of surrounding lands.

Answer: D
Board of Directors
User avatar
D
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4774
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 May 2016, 12:54
1
happy1992 wrote:
In many states landowners may make use of a conservation easement, a legal agreement that restricts the use of land. A landowner can donate an easement to a land trust, which amounts to a charitable donation equal to the difference between the market value of the land and its value under the easement restrictions. Normally, owners of unused farmland and other undeveloped property are often under market pressure to sell to developers, who can offer much more for it than could be made from renting the property. These owners should take advantage of conservation easements to prevent unwanted development.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Some land trusts are for-profit enterprises that buy and sell properties whose use is restricted.
(B) Land donated using an easement is usually located in areas with very low population density.
(C) Some landowners are able to split up their properties such that part of the land is donated to a trust and the rest continues to earn rents for the owner.
(D) Most property owners can make more money by renting their property than by donating an easement and taking the corresponding tax benefits.
(E) When land use is restricted, the value of surrounding unrestricted land rises.


Our objective is to weaken the conclusion ( highlighted above )

None but (D) states that owners take advantage of conservation easements for 2 specific benefits -

1. Make more money by renting their property
2. Tax benefits

Thus (D) presents alternate reasons for choice of renting their property and hence weaken the conclusion....

Hence answer will be (B)
_________________
Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 19 Sep 2015
Posts: 11
Re: In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2019, 21:22
happy1992 wrote:
In many states landowners may make use of a conservation easement, a legal agreement that restricts the use of land. A landowner can donate an easement to a land trust, which amounts to a charitable donation equal to the difference between the market value of the land and its value under the easement restrictions. Normally, owners of unused farmland and other undeveloped property are often under market pressure to sell to developers, who can offer much more for it than could be made from renting the property. These owners should take advantage of conservation easements to prevent unwanted development.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Some land trusts are for-profit enterprises that buy and sell properties whose use is restricted.
(B) Land donated using an easement is usually located in areas with very low population density.
(C) Some landowners are able to split up their properties such that part of the land is donated to a trust and the rest continues to earn rents for the owner.
(D) Most property owners can make more money by renting their property than by donating an easement and taking the corresponding tax benefits.
(E) When land use is restricted, the value of surrounding unrestricted land rises.

Is this really from GMATPrep software? Have you transcribed it from the software or copied from another forum?
_________________
Regards,
N
1. All official questions collection
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Posts: 4
CAT Tests
Re: In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2019, 09:19
Why not option E?
Conclusion: Owners should make use of the easement (legal agreements) to prevent unwanted developments.
Option E states that if the value of the unrestricted land rises then the development will start on that land and unwanted developments won't be able to stop. So it is of no use to make the use of the easement.

Kindly reply, I am confused for this one.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Apr 2019
Posts: 12
Re: In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2019, 10:10
1
Abhishek009 wrote:
happy1992 wrote:
In many states landowners may make use of a conservation easement, a legal agreement that restricts the use of land. A landowner can donate an easement to a land trust, which amounts to a charitable donation equal to the difference between the market value of the land and its value under the easement restrictions. Normally, owners of unused farmland and other undeveloped property are often under market pressure to sell to developers, who can offer much more for it than could be made from renting the property. These owners should take advantage of conservation easements to prevent unwanted development.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Some land trusts are for-profit enterprises that buy and sell properties whose use is restricted.
(B) Land donated using an easement is usually located in areas with very low population density.
(C) Some landowners are able to split up their properties such that part of the land is donated to a trust and the rest continues to earn rents for the owner.
(D) Most property owners can make more money by renting their property than by donating an easement and taking the corresponding tax benefits.
(E) When land use is restricted, the value of surrounding unrestricted land rises.


Our objective is to weaken the conclusion ( highlighted above )

None but (D) states that owners take advantage of conservation easements for 2 specific benefits -

1. Make more money by renting their property
2. Tax benefits

Thus (D) presents alternate reasons for choice of renting their property and hence weaken the conclusion....

Hence answer will be (B)

The passage states that developers offer more than the rent then how will they make more money by renting the property?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Posts: 18
Re: In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2019, 23:36
A is better than B, but one should use C.
Weakener-1 as given in option D: B +X is as beneficial as C
Weakener-2: C is not beneficial as A
where:
A: selling land to developers
B: Renting
C: Easement
X: Tax benefits

OR

https://gmatdaily.com/20140520-gmat-question-of-the-day.html
This is a weaken question. The argument is that owners of certain properties who wish to avoid development on those properties should take advantage of conservation easements, which prevent development, and give the owners substantial tax benefits. The argument assumes that, as a way of preventing development, the tax benefits of an easement are preferable (probably in dollar terms) than simply renting the property and continuing to own it. Consider each choice:

(A) This is irrelevant; all trusts that purchase lands under easements would achieve the same end regarding development, whether they re-sell the property or not.
(B) The population density of an area has nothing to do with the argument; presumably, most areas have low density before they are developed.
(C) The argument isn't about what owners can do, it's about what they should do--the fact that they can split up their land does not mean that's the route they should take.
(D) This is correct. If more financial benefits accrue to owners who rent property than those who donate an easement, those owners prevent development (as desired) and get more money.
(E) The argument is concerned with the benefits of specific land owners; the effect on other lands based on easement decisions is out of the scope of this question
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 06 Mar 2018
Posts: 69
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q47 V27
GRE 1: Q160 V150
GPA: 2.7
CAT Tests
Re: In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2019, 04:47
I am unable to understand the stimuli. What actually we are looking for Rakesh1987
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 96
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2019, 21:13
Hi Rakesh1987,

Thank you for your kind explanation.

However, I have some doubt on the question.

In the conclusion, it looks like the goal is to prevent unwanted development, not need of funds.

So, my question is what part of the argument can we infer that it is to deal with "need of funds" ?

Please explain.

Thank you.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Posts: 67
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Premium Member CAT Tests
In many states landowners may make use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2019, 22:43
ballest127 wrote:
Hi Rakesh1987,

Thank you for your kind explanation.

However, I have some doubt on the question.

In the conclusion, it looks like the goal is to prevent unwanted development, not need of funds.

So, my question is what part of the argument can we infer that it is to deal with "need of funds" ?

Please explain.

Thank you.


This one "Normally, owners of unused farmland and other undeveloped property are often under market pressure to sell to developers, who can offer much more for it than could be made from renting the property."

Fact 1: Development offers more money than renting, therefore people go for development.
Fact 2: It is unwanted development, and should be avoided
Conclusion: They should go for Conservation Easement instead.
What is assumed in the above argument??
Assumption: "Conservation Easement will offer more money than Renting"

Alternate cases (wrong ones)
Case 1- R>E: Now you tell me, if renting offers more money than Easement, why would the guy advise for conservation easement??
Case 2- R=E: If he were indifferent he would simply say people should not give land to developers, or he would say people should either rent or go for conservation easement.


By specifically stating these two things:
1) people require money therefore they sell land to developers instead of renting and
2) they should instead give their land for conservation easement.
He is implying that there is more money in conservation easement.

Please give +1 Kudos, if you liked the explanation :cool:
GMAT Club Bot
In many states landowners may make use   [#permalink] 25 Sep 2019, 22:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In many states landowners may make use

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





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