Property values in South Orange, New Jersey, have nearly doubled in th

Question

Property values in South Orange, New Jersey, have nearly doubled in the last six years. South Orange is
located in Essex County, 17 miles from New York City.

Which of the following, if true, best explains the results described in the statement?

a. the proximity of South Orange to New York City
b. the completion of a direct rail line to New York City
c. the addition of 240 housing units in South Orange
d. improved schools and a renovated downtown in South Orange
e. the relocation of a major technical corporation to Union, New Jersey, two miles from South Orange

mmagyar · Accepted Answer

This came up as QOTD today, and yuck!

I think the goal of the question writer was to have the answer bridge the two facts, but nothing in the question stem suggests that.

We are asked to explain the results. Since the location is not a "result", we are actually being asked to explain why properly values have nearly doubled in the last 6 years. The only additional fact that we know is that it is 17 miles away from NYC.

A. It's location didn't change over the last 6 years, so this cannot explain the rise in property values.  Definitely Incorrect 
B. This could maybe explain an increase in property values because better transportation to a large city can make it more desirable for people to live there, but we don't know when it was completed and there are no other connecting facts, so its relevance is questionable.  Possibly correct? 
C. Additional housing would increase supply, which if anything might decrease property values.  Definitely Incorrect 
D. This could certainly explain an increase in property values because better schools and better downtown can make it more desirable to live there, but we don't know when this occurred and there are no other connecting facts, so its relevance is questionable.  Possibly correct? 
E. This could maybe explain an increase in property values because it likely means better and higher paying jobs in the area, which increases demand and the supply of money, but we don't know when this occurred and there are no other connecting facts, so its relevance is questionable.  Possibly correct?

B, D, and E are all acceptable answers and there are no connecting facts to logically distinguish one as a more likely cause than the others, so this is a terrible question IMO.

Again, I think the author wanted the answer to have to connect the two facts, making B the most relevant, but there's nothing in the question to suggest having to do that. Without such a statement, the "17 miles away fact" is irrelevant to anything. This is a great example of why I tell students to avoid non-official questions.

(By the way, this is NOT an inference question, so it's tagged wrongly as well.)

b9n920 · Answer

Really.. I am surprised that I got it correct. There were nothing I found to choose one among B, D, and E.

Kelzie01 · Answer

The only reason I knocked out E is it didn't mention South Orange. Maybe the commute to Union sucks? Maybe South Orange has lower than average housing quality and the new tech company mostly employees highly compensated individuals? Not enough information to say without a doubt that a new company in Union means higher housing prices in South Orange.

That said, I guessed between B and D and got it wrong. I call BS. Better schools and a more attractive downtown are absolutely going to raise home prices. How is this wrong???

That said, I guessed between B and D and got it wrong. I call BS. Better schools and a more attractive downtown are absolutely going to raise home prices. How is this wrong???

123mba123 · Answer

We have to find option which best explains rise in property value.--
a. the proximity of South Orange to New York City - This won't rise rates as this fact was there even prior to 6 years.
b. the completion of a direct rail line to New York City - This can result in property rate increase and this also talks about a connection between two said cities,
c. the addition of 240 housing units in South Orange - - Not relevant. We can not conclude anything from this.
d. improved schools and a renovated downtown in South Orange - This may be a reason for value increase but this does not talk about New York which is mentioned in first sentence of problem. 
e. the relocation of a major technical corporation to Union, New Jersey, two miles from South Orange -- This may be a reason for value increase but this does not talk about New York which is mentioned in first sentence of problem.

More likely answer is B

kanigmat011 · Answer

which type of question is this
Flaw in reasoning, method of reasoning, evaluate the argument

gmatser1 · Answer

I don't think you'd ever see this on the GMAT. I welcome someone to present a CR from Official Sources that is like this one.

E is a perfectly plausible answer, as is A and B.

mvictor · Answer

a. the proximity of South Orange to New York City
South Orange was close to NYC for more than 6 years..so not good.

b. the completion of a direct rail line to New York City
hm..so SO is connected to NYC. more people would chose to live in suburbs and work in NYC...so more people would come to SO to live..thus..as per supply and demand law, the price would go up. looks good.

c. the addition of 240 housing units in South Orange
more houses -> increase in supply -> what about demand? what if it is the same? if yes - this would decrease the prices..so no.

d. improved schools and a renovated downtown in South Orange
definitely out. otherwise why would it give us info about NYC?

e. the relocation of a major technical corporation to Union, New Jersey, two miles from South Orange
same as in d, why would the argument then give info about NYC? 
moreover, the relocation is a one time procedure..so the corporation would buy properties..and that's it..it does not mean that it would continue to buy properties, or that the people were relocated to SO, or etc..since way too many assumptions are needed for this answer choice to be true..it is not a correct answer.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Correct Answer: B

The direct rail line is the most logical explanation for an increase in property values. The proximity to New York City in itself (choice a) would not necessarily increase property values, but the addition of public transportation that provides direct access to the city would make the town a more desirable place to live. When a place becomes more desirable, real-estate values increase. Choice c, the addition of housing units, is likely an effect of the direct rail line and an increase in the desirability of the location. The improvement of the schools and the renovation of the downtown (choice d) may or may not be related to the increase in property values. It would be logical to conclude that funds for improving the schools and downtown could be gleaned from additional resources from increased property taxes, another effect of increased property values. The relocation of a major corporation to a neighboring town (choice e) could account for the increased desirability of property in South Orange, but the direct access to the city is a more compelling reason. Perhaps a few hundred persons may work in the corporation, but many thousands are likely to want an easy commute to the city.

TheNightKing · Answer

A is just not good enough.
C is just way too fewer number of houses.

D and E are both tempting but we can eliminate them on the grounds that both could be valid answers and that will be never be the case. What I am trying to say here is: 1. Better Schools 2. New companies 3. Better infrastructure. The list will go on and on.

Option B tells us that people can easily commute to NYC and thus make it the best candidate for the right answer.

P.S: I kinda feel that there is an implicit assumption that people will travel to NYC for jobs or whatever and prefer to live in suburb. But Yeah. Okay.

dushyanta · Answer

The reason why I selected D over B is as per question perspective we don't know anything about NYC whether its a melting point of all the cultures & Industries or just a small village

Bunuel  - Is it necessary to make the two information given in the question connect to each other?

PCSund · Answer

Came up as daily recommended for me. Something is off about the question, with the implicit assumption that NYC access is most important.

I chose between B and D with the following reasoning:
B - the completion would not result in gradually increasing property value and the 6 years mentioned in the question indicates that it happened over time rather than at rail line completion - therefore went with D which would better explain the gradual increase over 6 years

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Property values in South Orange, New Jersey, have nearly doubled in th

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Property values in South Orange, New Jersey, have nearly doubled in th

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards