An appraiser uses paired sales to estimate the contributory value of a swimming pool. She identifies three pairs: Pair 1 shows a $14,500 difference; Pair 2, $16,200; Pair 3, $13,800. All pairs control for age, size, condition, location, and sale date (within 5 days). The subject property has a pool. What is the most appropriate way to apply these paired results in the reconciliation?
Correct Answer
B) Average the three amounts ($14,833) and round to the nearest $100 for consistency.
USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(b) requires adjustments to be supported by credible evidence — multiple consistent paired sales strengthen reliability. Averaging credible, well-controlled paired differences is an accepted practice in appraisal practice (as affirmed in the Appraisal Institute's 'The Appraisal of Real Estate', 14th ed., Ch. 13). While rounding is common for reporting clarity, the key principle is using all credible paired evidence collectively. Option A misapplies statistical preference without evidence of outlier status; Option C introduces bias; Option D misuses paired analysis — it supports an adjustment, not a separate valuation approach.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option B uses all three credible indications, which is the point of gathering more than one pair, and produces about $14,833 before rounding to a reportable figure. Averaging is appropriate precisely because the pairs are equally well controlled and none has been shown to be contaminated; if one had been, the analysis would exclude it first and then reconcile the rest. Rounding for reporting clarity does not weaken the support, since the underlying calculation remains in the workfile.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: Use only the median value ($14,500) because it is resistant to outliers.
The median is a sound tool when a data set contains outliers that would distort a mean, but nothing here identifies an outlier. Preferring it by reflex discards two valid observations and substitutes a statistical habit for analysis. The option even mislabels the reason, since resistance to outliers matters only when outliers exist.
Option C: Select $16,200 because it is the highest — indicating strongest buyer demand in that submarket.
Choosing the highest indication because it suggests strong demand is advocacy dressed as analysis. A single pair is one observation, not proof of a submarket premium, and systematically reaching for the top of a range biases every assignment upward. The standards require impartiality in exactly this situation.
Option D: Apply each amount separately in three different approaches and average the final opinions of value.
Paired sales support one adjustment within the sales comparison approach; they do not generate three separate approaches to value. Running the grid three times and averaging the results would multiply a single element of comparison into a false appearance of independent evidence. This option misunderstands what an approach to value is.
All Credible, All Counted
If a pair survived your screening, it earned a vote. Exclude for a documented reason before reconciling, then count every survivor; never let the number you like decide which observations exist.
How to use: For reconciliation items, first ask whether any indication has been shown to be defective. If none has, choose the option that uses all of them; if one has, exclude it and then use the rest.
Exam Tip
Options that pick the highest or lowest figure are almost always wrong on reconciliation items, because they describe an outcome preference rather than an analysis.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Reaching for the median or the mean without first asking whether outliers exist
- -Selecting the indication that best supports a desired conclusion
- -Treating a single adjustment technique as though it were a separate approach to value
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
Reconciliation of several paired-sales indications asks how to convert multiple credible measurements into one number the grid can use. When the pairs are well controlled, closely spaced in time, and tightly clustered, each is a legitimate observation of the same market reaction, and the reconciled figure should reflect all of them rather than a single favored point. The three indications here span $13,800 to $16,200, a spread of $2,400 around a mean near $14,800, which is ordinary sampling variation rather than evidence that one pair is defective. Reconciliation is a reasoned weighting, not a mechanical formula, so the appraiser explains why the chosen figure represents the market and keeps the supporting analysis in the workfile.
Background Knowledge
You need to understand paired sales as a technique for isolating the contribution of one property feature, and reconciliation as reasoned judgment applied to multiple indications. You also need to know when a measure of central tendency such as the median is preferable, namely when the data contain genuine outliers.
Real-World Application
An appraiser deriving a pool adjustment in a warm-climate subdivision finds three tight pairs, averages them, and explains in the report that the indications clustered closely enough that a simple average fairly represents the market reaction.
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