A building constructed in 1990 shows significant wear due to deferred maintenance and poor quality materials. If similar well-maintained buildings from 1990 have an effective age of 20 years, this building's effective age is most likely:

Option A: 33 years (actual age)

Option A assumes effective age equals actual age, which ignores the impact of condition on the building's utility and marketability. Since the building has deferred maintenance and poor materials, it would show more wear than a typical 33-year-old building, making its effective age greater than its actual age. Effective age specifically accounts for condition factors that actual age cannot capture.

Option B: 20 years (same as comparable buildings)

Option B incorrectly assumes this poorly maintained building has the same effective age as well-maintained comparable buildings. The question specifically states the building shows 'significant wear due to deferred maintenance and poor quality materials,' which would cause it to function as if it were older than the well-maintained comparables. Effective age must reflect the actual condition, not just the construction date.

Option D: 15 years (less than actual age)

Option D suggests the building has an effective age less than its actual age, which would only occur if the building were in better condition than typical buildings of the same age. Since the question describes significant wear, deferred maintenance, and poor materials, the building clearly shows more deterioration than expected for its age. An effective age less than actual age would indicate superior maintenance and condition.