In many states landowners may make use

Question

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.

Rakesh1987 · Accepted Answer

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.

Kurtosis · Answer

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

ballest127 · Answer

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.

Rakesh1987 · Answer

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.

Anshul1223333 · Answer

the goal here is to prevent unwanted development. the plan is to donate an easement.

To weaken, we have to prove that plan will not work or plan will still lead to unwanted development.

D] gives an alternate option to earn more money. How is it related to the plan in question

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

Combining D with the information from the passage gives
Income from donated easement < Income from renting <<< Income from selling to developers
...in which case donating the easement is the worst of the three plans, in terms of the landowners' bottom line.

Tucky · Answer

DmitryFarber   AjiteshArun   KarishmaB

Dear Experts, I need help with the correct answer (D):

Goal:  to prevent unwanted development.
 How do we do it:  donate an easement.

A weakening statement may hint that " the  plan won't work" or " the plan MAY lead to unwanted development ''

D) gives us ways to earn more money. How is this related?

Even if we say that renting property will make more money, the stimulus doesn't hint that  ''RENTING''  will stop developers from pressuring to SELL. If we are accepting (D), we are assuming that  RENTING will stop developers from pressuring to SELL

KarishmaB · Answer

I get where you are coming from but let's look at it from a different perspective.

Given: 
 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.

The author is discussing unused properties - which means they are not being used - not used by the owner, not rented, nothing.
So developers pressurize these property owners to sell (claiming that you will get much more than you will even if you rent the property).

Advice of the author - donate an easement and get a tax break if you don't want to sell and prevent unwanted development. So he is making a point that you will earn money out of the unused property and keep the property safe from development.

But the weakness (a con in the 'pros and cons' list) of this plan is that what you make is little. You can make more by renting out the land. That is all. All other options are irrelevant so this is the best.

AditiDeokar · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB , could you please explain why not A, also I see why D is right but nowhere has it been mentioned about the tax break in the passage, I don't get that part from below.

guddo · Answer

Option A doesn't weaken because whether the land trust is for-profit doesn't change the landowner's benefit from the easement donation.

The passage calls the easement a charitable donation, which implies tax benefits even if not stated explicitly. Option D says renting could be more profitable than those benefits, weakening the financial reason to choose an easement. That's why D works.

manan01 · Answer

I think you would get this question wrong if you pre-think in terms that land trusts(LT) might sell the land to developers if need be, and hence A might seem tempting. But if we do not pre-think much and look for a valid weakener, D is most clearly the picture perfect answer with keywords being "more", which shows clear advantage over donating to LT.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray , can you please help me with this question? Here conclusion is "...should take advantage to prevent unwanted development." To weaken it, we probably need to find something which makes this plan less probable, but what option D does is just that we can earn more money if we rent it out. My concern is that our goal is to prevent unwanted development and to do that passage suggested land easement is the way. Now there might be other alternative way but it doesn't weaken the land easement way! And I am not able to see any hint in the passage where one should think of monetary benefits too simultaneously.

MartyMurray · Answer

I agree that it's somewhat surprising that (D) is the credited answer. At the same time, the truth is that the point of the argument isn't 100 percent clear, and if we look carefully at how the argument works, we can see how (D) works as a weakener.

The argument starts off mentioning that a conservation easement is "a legal agreement that restricts the use of land" that can make possible "a charitable donation equal to the difference between the market value of the land and its value under the easement restrictions."

So, what we can notice is that monetary benefits associated with a "charitable donation," while not directly mentioned," are implied to be available to landowners who make use of conservation easements. Thus, in the argument, the fact that there are monetary benefits is part of the case for the conclusion.

Then, we see that the conclusion is the following:

These owners should take advantage of conservation easements to prevent unwanted development.

In saying what owners "should" do, the concluding statement is basically saying that taking advantage of conservation easements is a good idea for landowners. Yes, the conclusion involves the purpose "to prevent unwanted development." At the same time, the main point of the argument can be taken to be that, for multiple reasons, taking this step is something landowners should do.

OK, so, given the fact that the argument considers financial benefits in concluding that taking advantage of conservation easements is a good idea, we can see that (D) weakens the case for the conclusion by indicating that another course of action will, at least financially, benefit landowners more than making use of a conservation easement.

In many states landowners may make use

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

In many states landowners may make use

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