Jazzy007 wrote:
Ks1859 wrote:
Hi!
Scarcity of housing in a particular market ---> larger than normal increases in price
And then the author states example to support his point.
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.--> Out of scope
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.-->Out of scope, nothing about new buyer is discussed
C. The U.S. housing market showed a larger than average increase in the 1990s across the country, not just in crowded urban areas.-->Irrelevant
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.--> This is the only supporting option because, if this is false, this would mean that it is not the high population but the people who are causing the scarcity.
E. A significant rise in housing prices in a specific area may cause some potential buyers to relocate to other, less pricey areas.-->Even if does, there are other buyers and the demand for the house might still rise- OUT
For assumption questions, the correct answer choice will fit one of the below:
*Eliminate an alternate cause for the stated effect
*Show that when the cause occurs, the effect occurs
*Shows that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur
*Eliminates the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed- Claimed effect is actually the cause of claimed cause
*Shows that the data used to make the causal statement are accurate or eliminates possible problems with the data
For this question we can use the first choice.
There might be other fit, but these are few of the important ones.
Hope this helps!
It looks to me an explanation after seeing the answer that is forcefully made to fit the answer.
As you have discarded B on the same basis I can discard D, because no where it has been talked about withholding the houses.
The passage only talks about price and population.
Really getting an answer is like luck.
Hi There!
If you know what questions actually are getting an answer is no luck. Secondly, it important to know as to why same basis and what actually is out of scope. This is not just a game where I discard B and you discard D
. If you discard D ETS will discard your 1 point and you never know that one point might be so precious.
Let me try helping you to negate B and reach to D as an answer.
If I am talking about apples, the assumption is also more likely to be about apples and not oranges. The author is talking about the rise in prices of the house so, I need an assumption which talks about the prices and not something which is totally different like a buyer or new buyer.
Now, Proving D Correct, in order to see whether the option is correct add/remove the negative. i.e. in the above; if I say, Price increases did cause people to withhold their houses from the market in the hopes that prices will increase even further in the future. So in this case it would mean that the authors conclusion is wrong and as there were few houses, this cause the scarcity rather than the high population. This is what we want.
Try negating an option to solve an assumption question.
Let me know if you further feel like discarding another option
Hope this helps!
19 Mar 2021, 05:30
38% (02:56) correct
