Comparable sales that required no adjustments at all should be treated as:
Correct Answer
A) Strong evidence, if the lack of adjustment is genuine
Why this is correct: The sales comparison approach relies on the best evidence of market value. A comparable sale that is truly identical to the subject property in all relevant characteristics (e.g., location, size, condition, date of sale) requires no adjustments. This unadjusted sale directly reflects the subject's market value and is strong, credible evidence. Why the other choices are wrong: Treating such sales as "Suspicious and excluded from the grid" is incorrect because a genuine model-match is ideal evidence. The idea that they need "at least a minimal market conditions adjustment" is false; if the sale date is identical or market conditions are stable, no adjustment is warranted. Considering them "Less reliable than heavily adjusted sales" is backwards; heavy adjustments introduce more potential for error and subjectivity, making them less reliable. Exam tip: A zero-adjustment sale is powerful evidence, but always verify the claim of 'no difference' is genuine for all major value factors.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Treating such a sale as strong evidence if the lack of adjustment is genuine gets both halves right: it recognizes that unadjusted market evidence is the ideal, and it conditions that recognition on verification. In practice the appraiser demonstrates the match by showing that the sale is in the same market segment, closed under stable conditions near the effective date, and equivalent in the characteristics that the market actually prices. Reconciliation should then give that sale substantial weight, and the report should explain why no adjustments were warranted rather than leaving a row of empty cells for a reader to interpret. Documented sameness is itself an analysis, not the absence of one.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option B: Suspicious and excluded from the grid
Excluding a sale because it needed no adjustment discards the best evidence in the file on the basis of suspicion alone. Scrutiny is the right response to an unadjusted comparable; deletion is not, and in tract subdivisions with repeated floor plans and simultaneous construction, genuine near-matches are ordinary rather than remarkable.
Option C: Requiring at least a minimal market conditions adjustment
Requiring a minimum market conditions adjustment as a matter of policy manufactures an adjustment where the data does not support one, which is the same error as omitting one the data does support. If the market has been stable between the sale date and the effective date, or the sale closed essentially at the effective date, the correct market conditions adjustment is zero.
Option D: Less reliable than heavily adjusted sales
Ranking heavily adjusted sales above unadjusted ones inverts the logic of the approach, since each additional adjustment injects another estimate with its own uncertainty into the indication. This is precisely why reviewers examine gross adjustment totals and why reconciliation gives more weight to the comparables requiring the least intervention.
Fewer Fingerprints, Better Evidence
Every adjustment is one of your fingerprints on the number. The comparable with the fewest fingerprints is the one closest to what the market actually did, provided you checked that it really is a match.
How to use: When a question contrasts adjusted with unadjusted sales, favor the unadjusted one and attach the verification condition. Reject options that impose mandatory adjustments or that rank heavier adjustment as more reliable.
Exam Tip
Answer choices containing hedged qualifiers such as if genuine are often correct on this exam, because appraisal answers usually depend on a condition being verified rather than assumed.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Assuming similar size and room count means no adjustment is needed
- -Leaving adjustment cells blank without explaining why no adjustment applies
- -Applying a token market conditions adjustment out of habit
- -Weighting a heavily adjusted comparable equally with a near-identical one in reconciliation
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This tests the relationship between adjustment magnitude and reliability in the sales comparison approach. Every adjustment is an estimate derived by the appraiser, so every adjustment carries the possibility of error, and the more of them a comparable requires the more of the final indication is the appraiser's arithmetic rather than the market's own behavior. A sale that genuinely needs no adjustment is therefore the strongest form of evidence available, because the price the market paid is the indication with nothing interposed. The catch is in the word genuinely, since a zero-adjustment sale usually reflects incomplete inspection or verification rather than a true match, and differences in condition, view, site, functional layout, and date of sale hide easily behind similar square footage and bedroom counts. So the correct posture is to welcome the unadjusted sale and then test the claim of sameness carefully.
Background Knowledge
You need to know that the sales comparison approach derives an indication from market transactions and that each adjustment is an appraiser-derived estimate carrying potential error. You should also know that reconciliation weighs comparables by comparability, data reliability, and the extent of adjustment, and that adjustments must be supported by market evidence rather than applied by convention.
Real-World Application
In a subdivision where thirty homes were built from the same plan in the same year, you find a sale two doors down with the identical floor plan, similar lot, comparable condition, and a closing three weeks before your effective date in a flat market. You verify condition and terms with the selling broker, apply no adjustments, explain in the report why none were warranted, and give that sale primary weight in reconciliation.
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