Adjusted indications of $296,000, $301,000 and $304,000 support a conclusion of:
Correct Answer
D) About $300,000, within the tight range
In the sales comparison approach, reconciliation involves analyzing the adjusted value indications from comparable sales to arrive at a final point estimate. The three adjusted values of $296,000, $301,000, and $304,000 form a tight, consistent cluster, indicating reliable comparable selection and adjustment. The principle is that the final concluded value should be within this range, as it is supported by the direct market evidence from the grid analysis. A specific figure like $300,000 reasonably represents the central tendency of this tight range. Why this is correct: The concluded value should be within the tight range of adjusted indications, as the original explanation states. 'About $300,000' is a reasonable estimate based on the central tendency of the clustered data ($296k, $301k, $304k). Why the other choices are wrong: '$290,000, applying a safety discount' is incorrect because it falls below the supported range without any evidence from the adjustment grid to justify such a discount. '$304,000, the highest supported figure' is wrong because selecting the highest indication without specific justification is arbitrary; reconciliation should consider all indications, not just the extreme. '$310,000, allowing for market movement' is incorrect because it is outside the range of supported indications; market movement adjustments should have been incorporated during the individual sale adjustments, not arbitrarily added after reconciliation. Exam tip: In reconciliation, a tight cluster of adjusted values means your conclusion should be a figure within that range, typically near its center.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option D is correct because a conclusion of about $300,000 sits within the tight bracket the adjusted indications establish and reflects their central tendency. It respects the evidence rather than departing from it, and the rounding is appropriate to the precision the data actually support. Landing inside a cluster this narrow requires no special explanation, which is itself a mark of a well-supported analysis. Each of the alternatives moves outside the bracket without any stated reason.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: $290,000, applying a safety discount
A safety discount to $290,000 falls below every adjusted indication and rests on caution rather than on evidence. Conservatism is not an appraisal principle; the assignment is to reach the most supportable conclusion, not the safest one. A conclusion below the entire bracket would need a specific, supported factor the grid missed, and none is offered here.
Option B: $304,000, the highest supported figure
Selecting $304,000 simply because it is the highest indication substitutes a rule for judgment and ignores the two lower indications entirely. Choosing an extreme can be defensible when that comparable is clearly the most similar and required the fewest adjustments, but the option gives no such reasoning. Taking the top of the range by default would bias every conclusion upward.
Option C: $310,000, allowing for market movement
A conclusion of $310,000 sits above every indication and justifies the departure by market movement, which should already have been handled through the market conditions adjustment applied to each comparable during the grid analysis. Adding a further allowance after reconciliation double counts the same factor. Any conclusion outside the bracket demands explicit support that this option does not supply.
Land Inside the Bracket
The adjusted indications draw a bracket, and a well-supported conclusion lands inside it. A tight bracket means the grid is working and the answer is near the middle. Stepping outside is allowed only with a named reason and evidence for it, never for caution or for extra market movement.
How to use: Check the spread of the indications first. A tight cluster means choose a figure inside it, generally central. Then reject any option outside the range and any option justified by a factor that belongs in the grid, such as time or market movement, since those were already adjusted.
Exam Tip
Round the conclusion to a level of precision the data support; reporting a figure to the dollar from a grid with an $8,000 spread implies an accuracy the analysis cannot deliver.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Averaging the adjusted indications instead of weighting them by reliability
- -Applying a conservative discount below the bracket with no supporting evidence
- -Adding a market movement allowance after reconciliation when it was already adjusted in the grid
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This question tests reconciliation in the sales comparison approach. Reconciliation is not averaging; it is a judgment about which indications deserve the most weight based on the quantity and quality of the data behind each sale, the similarity of each comparable to the subject, and the number and size of the adjustments each required. When the adjusted indications cluster tightly, as $296,000, $301,000, and $304,000 do across a span of just $8,000 or under three percent, the grid is telling the appraiser that the comparable selection and the adjustments are working consistently. A tight cluster narrows the defensible range of conclusions, and the appropriate answer sits inside it, typically near the center unless one comparable is clearly superior and pulls the weighting toward its indication. The conclusion should also be stated at a level of precision the data support, which is why appraisers round to a figure like $300,000 rather than reporting an artificially exact number implying accuracy the analysis does not have. Concluding outside the bracket is not forbidden, but it requires the appraiser to identify and support a factor the grid did not capture.
Background Knowledge
You need to know that reconciliation weighs indications by data quality, comparability, and the magnitude and number of adjustments, and that it is not a mathematical averaging exercise. You should also know that market conditions adjustments are applied within the grid before reconciliation, that a conclusion outside the bracket of adjusted indications requires explicit support, and that rounding should reflect the precision the data justify.
Real-World Application
With adjusted indications of $296,000, $301,000, and $304,000, an appraiser gives the greatest weight to the $301,000 sale, which is the most similar in age and required the smallest gross adjustment, and concludes $300,000. The reconciliation explains the weighting and notes that all three sales bracket the subject on size and condition.
More Sales Comparison Questions
Excess land differs from surplus land in that excess land:
A paired sales analysis reveals that homes with stainless-steel appliances sell for $2,100 more than identical homes with standard appliances — but only when the homes are priced below $350,000. In the subject’s neighborhood, median sale price is $410,000. What is the appraiser’s obligation regarding the $2,100 appliance adjustment?
GLA differs by 210 sq ft between subject and comparable. Paired sales support $65 per sq ft of living area. The line adjustment is:
Paired sales are drawn from transactions six months apart in a stable market. The time adjustment needed is:
The most appropriate unit of comparison is determined by:
A comparable superior to the subject in every adjusted category should produce an indication that is:
Three sales support $520,000; the borrower's purchase contract is $505,000. May the appraisal conclude above the contract price?
A comparable sold for $300,000 with the seller carrying a loan 2 points below market, a benefit worth $8,000. What is its cash-equivalent price?
Why is a foreclosure sale generally a poor comparable in a stable market?
A comparable sold 8 months ago for $250,000 in a market appreciating 6% per year. What is the time-adjusted price?
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
In a commercial-residential mixed-use neighborhood, an appraiser adjusts a comparable for corner location using a $16,000 dollar adjustment derived from detached single-family sales. The subject is a duplex on a corner lot. The appraiser notes in the report: 'Corner premium is assumed consistent across housing types due to shared street exposure.' Under USPAP, what is the primary deficiency in this reasoning?
Next Question
A comparable is superior in condition and inferior in GLA relative to the subject. Its adjustments will: