Three comparables adjust to similar prices. Sale 1 had 4% gross adjustments, was verified with a party to the sale and closed two months ago. Sale 2 had 9% gross adjustments, was verified and closed four months ago. Sale 3 had 27% gross adjustments, was not verified and closed ten months ago. Which weighting (Sale 1 / Sale 2 / Sale 3) is best supported?
Correct Answer
D) 55% / 35% / 10%, because Sales 1 and 2 are the closest and best verified
Within the sales comparison approach, the greatest weight belongs to the sales closest in comparability, and data reliability matters too, so the recent, lightly adjusted, verified Sales 1 and 2 should carry most of the weight. Equal weights treat an unverified, heavily adjusted sale like the best one, and giving Sale 3 the most weight rewards its extra adjustments or bracketing role rather than its comparability.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option D is correct because Sales 1 and 2 need the smallest adjustments, are verified and are recent, so they are the closest in comparability and the most reliable. Sale 3 can be kept as support but deserves little weight given 27% gross adjustments, no verification and a ten-month-old date.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: 34% / 33% / 33%, because each of the three sales was included in the grid
Option A, near-equal weights of 34% / 33% / 33%, treats inclusion in the grid as a reason for equal reliance. That amounts to a simple average and ignores the clear differences in adjustment size and verification.
Option B: 20% / 30% / 50%, because Sale 3 required the most analysis to adjust
Option B, 20% / 30% / 50%, gives Sale 3 the most weight because it needed the most analysis. Heavy adjustments signal weaker comparability, so the effort spent adjusting it is a reason for less weight, not more.
Option C: 25% / 25% / 50%, because Sale 3 widens the bracket around the subject
Option C, 25% / 25% / 50%, gives Sale 3 half the weight for bracketing the subject. Bracketing can help test adjustments, but it does not make an unverified, heavily adjusted, dated sale the most reliable indicator.
Close, verified, recent wins
The comparable needing the fewest adjustments, with confirmed data and a recent date, earns the most weight.
How to use: Use this when choosing among weighting schemes for comparables with different adjustment levels and data quality.
Exam Tip
Look for the option that ties the weights to comparability and verification, not to effort or position in the grid.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Treating all sales in the grid as equally reliable
- -Giving more weight to heavily adjusted sales because they took more work
- -Ranking sales by bracketing value rather than by comparability
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
The question tests choosing weights for comparables from comparability and data quality. The candidate weighs three signals together: size of adjustments, verification and recency. All three point to Sales 1 and 2.
Background Knowledge
Each adjusted comparable is a separate indication, and these should not simply be averaged. The appraiser evaluates the adjustments and the data behind each sale and gives the greatest weight to the sales closest in comparability, considering data accuracy and quantity.
Real-World Application
An appraiser has two recent verified sales on the subject's street and one older sale across town known only from listing data. The report gives the two nearby sales most of the weight and explains that the third is kept only as a check.
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
Direct comparable land sales indicate $120,000 and extraction indicates $95,000. What is the best next step before reconciliation?
Next Question
In a USPAP real-property appraisal assignment, what determines whether a form, letter or narrative report adequately communicates the results?