Sales Comparisoneasy16.4% of exam

A grid with five comparables, three tightly clustered and two far apart, suggests:

Correct Answer

D) The clustered sales are likely the better indicators

Why this is correct: The correct answer is 'The clustered sales are likely the better indicators.' The original explanation anchors this: after adjustments, good comparables should cluster, indicating reliability. Outliers exist but must be investigated and discussed in the reconciliation narrative; they are not automatically the best indicators. Why the other choices are wrong: 'The subject cannot be reliably valued' is wrong because outliers don't invalidate an appraisal; they require analysis. 'The simple average of all five is the best conclusion' is wrong because mechanically averaging clustered and outlier sales without weighting or narrative is poor practice. 'Two comparables should be removed silently' is wrong because appraisers must not silently discard data; any exclusion requires explanation. Exam tip: In reconciliation, clustered comparables signal reliability, but always address outliers in your narrative—don't ignore or hide them.

Answer Options

The subject cannot be reliably valued

The simple average of all five is the best conclusion

Two comparables should be removed silently

The clustered sales are likely the better indicators

Why This Is the Correct Answer

Option D is right because convergence is the practical test of a well-adjusted grid, and the three clustered sales converge. Weighting them most heavily reflects the ordinary reconciliation criteria of comparability, quantity of evidence, and reliability of the data. The two distant indications still get analyzed and discussed, but they carry less weight unless investigation shows the cluster is the problem. This is judgment supported by disclosure, which is precisely what the reconciliation section is for.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Option A: The subject cannot be reliably valued

Dispersion among indications is a normal analytical condition, not a bar to reaching a credible opinion. Nearly every grid produces some spread, and the appraiser's job is to weigh the evidence and explain the conclusion, not to decline the assignment. Declaring the property unvaluable would also fail the client, who needs an opinion supported by reasoning.

Option B: The simple average of all five is the best conclusion

A simple average gives an outlier exactly the same weight as the best comparable in the file, which defeats the purpose of reconciliation. Mechanical averaging substitutes arithmetic for judgment and can pull the conclusion toward a sale you have reason to distrust. Reconciliation calls for weighting by reliability, and that weighting must be reasoned rather than automatic.

Option C: Two comparables should be removed silently

Silently deleting data is the one clearly improper choice here. An appraiser may give an outlier little or no weight, but the analysis and the reason for discounting it belong in the report; quiet removal misleads the reader about what evidence existed. Suppressing inconvenient sales also invites a credibility challenge in review.

Cluster is the signal, outlier is the question

Three sales agreeing is evidence; two sales disagreeing is a question you owe the reader an answer to. Weight the agreement, explain the disagreement, hide nothing.

How to use: On reconciliation questions, reject any option that averages everything and any option that deletes something quietly. The surviving answer almost always weights the tight group while keeping the outliers on the page.

Exam Tip

Words like 'silently,' 'automatically,' and 'simple average' mark distractors in reconciliation items. The correct answer usually involves judgment plus disclosure.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

-Averaging all indications regardless of reliability
-Dropping outliers from the report without explanation
-Treating an outlier as proof the assignment cannot be completed
-Failing to investigate whether an outlier reveals a flawed adjustment rather than a flawed sale

Concept Deep Dive

Analysis

This question tests reconciliation judgment in the sales comparison approach, specifically what the distribution of adjusted sale prices tells you about the quality of your own work. Adjustments exist to strip out the differences between each comparable and the subject, so if they are well supported the adjusted indications should converge. When three sales land close together and two sit well outside that group, the tight cluster is the stronger evidence, because independent sales arriving at similar conclusions is exactly what a reliable analysis looks like. The outliers are not garbage, though; they are signals that something about those transactions, their comparability, or their adjustments deserves a second look. Reconciliation is a reasoned weighting of the indications, not an averaging exercise, and USPAP's reporting requirements mean whatever weighting you choose has to be explained.

Background Knowledge

You need to know that reconciliation weighs indications by comparability, data reliability, and the amount of support behind each adjustment, and that it is never a mechanical average. You also need to know that USPAP requires a report to contain sufficient information for the intended user to understand the reasoning, so exclusions and weightings must be explained rather than performed silently.

Real-World Application

Your grid shows three adjusted sales within two percent of each other and two that miss by nine percent. You call the listing agents, learn one outlier was an estate sale with a short marketing period and the other included a seller-paid rate buydown, then weight the cluster and explain both outliers in the reconciliation narrative.

reconciliationsales comparison approachadjusted sale priceoutlier analysisweighting indications

Was this explanation helpful?

People Also Study

Real Estate Market

13.6% of exam

Property Description

11.8% of exam

Land or Site Valuation

4.5% of exam

Cost Approach

13.6% of exam

Income Approach

8.2% of exam

Previous Question

An appraiser is reconciling three comparable sales for a subject property with 2,100 square feet. One comparable has 1,950 square feet and sold for $468,000; another has 2,250 square feet and sold for $495,000. The appraiser calculates a gross adjustment of +$18,000 for the first comparable and −$22,500 for the second. Which statement best reflects proper application of net versus gross adjustment logic in the sales comparison approach?

Next Question

In appraising a condominium unit, the strongest comparables are usually:

Sales Comparison Questions Practice Interactively