One developed approach remains unreliable after investigation. Other applicable evidence adequately supports credible results for the assignment. How should the unreliable indication be treated?
Correct Answer
A) Explain its limitations and the reason for little or no reliance on it.
Explain the unreliable indication’s limitations and why it receives little or no weight, given that the remaining analysis is adequate here. Disclosure alone cannot cure an overall noncredible appraisal. If necessary evidence is still missing, additional work or an assignment change is required.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option A is correct because credible assignment results require support by relevant evidence and logic, and an unreliable indication does not provide that support. Since the other evidence adequately supports the conclusion, the appraiser can give the weak indication little or no weight. Explaining its limitations and the reason for minimal reliance lets the report reader understand the reasoning.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option B: Give it equal weight because it was developed.
Option B gives the unreliable indication equal weight because it was developed. Development effort does not make an indication reliable, and equal weight would let weak evidence pull the conclusion away from the supported result.
Option C: Hide its limitations and report the highest result.
Option C hides the indication's limitations and reports the highest result. Concealing limitations misleads the reader, and choosing the highest figure reflects bias rather than analysis of the evidence.
Option D: Average it with the reliable results so that its uncertainty cancels out.
Option D averages the unreliable indication with the reliable ones so its uncertainty supposedly cancels out. Averaging does not remove error; it blends the unreliable figure into the conclusion and weakens the support for it.
Explain it, don't blend it
An unreliable indication gets an explanation, not a vote; tell the reader why it carries little or no weight.
How to use: Use this when a question describes a developed approach whose data proved unreliable.
Exam Tip
Look for the answer that combines transparency with reliance on supported evidence; options that average, hide or equal-weight weak data are usually wrong.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Giving equal weight to each developed approach
- -Averaging unreliable data with reliable data to offset uncertainty
- -Omitting the reason an indication was given minimal weight
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This question tests how to treat a developed approach that stays unreliable after investigation when the remaining evidence still supports credible results. Credible results require support by relevant evidence and logic, so an unreliable indication should not drive the conclusion. The appraiser explains its limitations and why it receives little or no reliance, rather than averaging it in or concealing it.
Background Knowledge
USPAP defines credible assignment results as those supported by relevant evidence and logic to the degree necessary for the intended use. In reconciliation, the appraiser evaluates each indication's reliability and explains the weight given. Disclosure of a weak indication helps transparency but does not cure an appraisal that lacks adequate support overall; missing evidence calls for more work or a change in the assignment.
Real-World Application
An appraiser develops a cost approach for a 60-year-old home but cannot reliably estimate depreciation. The sales comparison approach is well supported by verified sales. The report explains the depreciation difficulties and states that the cost indication received little weight.
More Reconciliation Questions
In a cost approach for an improved property, an appraiser estimates site value by sales comparison, allocation and extraction, then settles on one site-value figure before final reconciliation. How is this step best described?
An extraordinary assumption was reasonably supported, properly used and disclosed in an appraisal report. Later, the assumed information is found to be false. Which conclusion is best supported?
An otherwise applicable valuation approach cannot be developed reliably from the available data. The remaining scope can produce credible assignment results. What should the appraiser do?
May an appraiser use a hypothetical condition in any assignment?
An appraisal has a current effective date and permits an extraordinary assumption if its requirements are met. Which situation involves uncertain information rather than a fact known to be contrary to reality on that date?
Why must a report identify any real property interest that is being excluded from the value opinion?
Which review best helps explain divergent cost, sales-comparison and income indications?
Two value indications are $340,000 and $392,000. What is the difference as a percentage of the lower indication, rounded to one decimal place?
An unauthorized third party requests a lender-client’s report. No due-process or other permitted disclosure exception applies. How should the appraiser respond?
An appraiser proposes to assume there are no hidden defects. Which fact would characterize that assumption as extraordinary under the USPAP 2024 definition, rather than justify dismissing it as routine boilerplate?
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
Previous Question
An owner-occupied home has three verified sales adjusting to $395,000, $398,000 and $401,000; an income indication of $350,000 rests on one questionable rent. Which reconciliation best reflects the benefits buyers seek?
Next Question
Adjusted sales of $402,000, $410,000 and $396,000 are weighted 50%, 30% and 20% within the sales comparison approach. The cost approach indicates $420,000. If the final reconciliation gives 80% weight to sales comparison and 20% to cost, what is the final value?