An appraiser completes a desktop assignment relying on a collector's report of interior condition. What does this typically require?
Correct Answer
C) An extraordinary assumption about that data
Why this is correct: An extraordinary assumption is an assumption about uncertain information used in an assignment that, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser's opinions or conclusions. Relying on an unverified third-party report about interior condition involves such uncertainty, requiring this disclosure. Why the other choices are wrong: 'A hypothetical condition regarding the interior' would be used if the appraiser knew the reported condition was false, which is not the case here. 'A jurisdictional exception to Standard 1' is for situations where USPAP conflicts with law or public policy, not for inspection methods. 'A second appraiser to verify the collection' is not a USPAP requirement. Exam tip: If you didn't see it yourself and it's material, you're likely making an extraordinary assumption.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option C is correct because relying on a third party's report of interior condition creates uncertainty the appraiser cannot personally resolve, which is the definition of an extraordinary assumption. The appraiser believes the data reasonable based on the collector's protocol and photographs, yet acknowledges the opinion would change if the description proved wrong. Clear disclosure is mandatory, and the assumption is permissible only where it is necessary for credible results and reasonably grounded. The appraiser also remains responsible for judging whether the desktop scope is adequate at all.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: A hypothetical condition regarding the interior
A hypothetical condition is contrary to what is known to exist, and here the appraiser knows nothing contrary about the interior; the condition is simply unobserved. Treating unverified third-party data as contrary to fact mislabels the situation and would confuse the reader about the nature of the limitation. The two devices are distinguished by knowledge, not by uncertainty level.
Option B: A jurisdictional exception to Standard 1
The Jurisdictional Exception Rule applies when a law or regulation binding on the assignment conflicts with a portion of USPAP, voiding only the conflicting part. Nothing in a desktop assignment involves such a legal conflict; the appraiser is choosing a scope of work, not overriding a standard by force of law. Invoking it here misapplies a narrow rule to an ordinary scope decision.
Option D: A second appraiser to verify the collection
No rule requires a second appraiser to verify a data collector's work, and adding one would not address the underlying uncertainty about the interior. The signing appraiser is responsible for judging the sufficiency and credibility of the data used. Where the data is inadequate, the remedy is more information or a broader scope, not a second signature.
Someone else's eyes
When your facts came through another person's eyes, you are assuming they saw correctly. That is an extraordinary assumption, and the reader deserves to be told the conclusion rests on it.
How to use: In any desktop or hybrid stem, expect an extraordinary assumption about the data you did not gather yourself. Then check whether the option also requires disclosure.
Exam Tip
An extraordinary assumption cannot rescue an inadequate scope of work. If the data will not support credible results, expand the scope rather than assuming the gap away.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Calling third-party data reliance a hypothetical condition
- -Using an extraordinary assumption to cover a scope of work that cannot produce credible results
- -Failing to disclose the assumption prominently
- -Treating the collector as responsible for the credibility of the appraisal
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This applies the extraordinary assumption concept to desktop and hybrid appraisal workflows. In a desktop assignment the appraiser never sees the interior and instead relies on information gathered by a property data collector or supplied by another source. The appraiser does not know from personal observation whether that interior description is accurate, but has a reasonable basis for believing it, given the collector's training, photographs, and the structured data protocol. That combination of uncertainty plus reasonable belief plus the potential to change the opinion if wrong is precisely an extraordinary assumption, and it must be disclosed clearly so the intended user understands what the conclusion rests on. The scope of work rule sits behind this: the appraiser must judge whether a desktop scope can produce credible results for the intended use, and if the collector's data is too thin or internally inconsistent, the right response is to seek more information or expand the scope rather than to paper over the gap with an assumption.
Background Knowledge
You need the definition and permitted use of extraordinary assumptions, and the way bifurcated, hybrid, and desktop assignments divide observation from analysis. You also need the scope of work rule's requirement that the scope be sufficient for credible results given the intended use, and the principle that the appraiser remains responsible for conclusions drawn from data gathered by others.
Real-World Application
On a desktop refinance assignment you receive a collector's photographs and condition ratings showing an updated kitchen and no deferred maintenance. You state an extraordinary assumption that the collector's description is accurate, disclose that the opinion would change if it is not, and request additional photographs when two images appear inconsistent with the reported condition.
More Emerging Methods Questions
How does an alternative inspection method affect the appraiser's disclosure obligations?
A collector's photographs show a condition the appraiser believes needs specialist assessment. What is the appropriate step?
What responsibility does an appraiser retain for an error originating in a third-party database?
Under current USPAP guidance, what is the output of an automated valuation model before an appraiser analyzes it?
Which assignment type still requires the appraiser to develop an opinion of value?
A model returns an estimate far from the appraiser's own conclusion. What is the appropriate response?
What does it mean that a tool cannot comply with USPAP?
An appraiser is asked to review an assignment where an AVM supplied the value. What does the review examine?
Why is the date a data extract was pulled worth recording in the workfile?
A desktop appraisal is best described as an assignment completed how?
People Also Study
Real Estate Market
13.6% of exam
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Land or Site Valuation
4.5% of exam
Sales Comparison Approach
16.4% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam