Verified buyer evidence in a competitive market segment shows no measurable effect from proximity to transit, but strong effects from waterfront location, size and quality, and market date. Which factor has the weakest support for an adjustment?
Correct Answer
C) Proximity to transit.
Buyer priorities must be supported for the actual market. The stated comparative market evidence establishes the relative importance of the features in this scenario; luxury waterfront property does not universally make transit unimportant. Do not infer a demographic preference without relevant evidence.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option C is correct because the verified evidence shows no measurable transit-proximity effect in this competitive segment. Adjustments must reflect the market's reaction, so a factor that buyers in this market did not measurably price has the weakest support for an adjustment. This conclusion comes from the stated evidence for this market, not from a general belief about transit.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: Market date.
Option A, the verified market-date effect, is stated to be strong in this market. Strong verified evidence supports a time adjustment rather than making it the weakest factor.
Option B: Waterfront location and water view.
Option B, the verified waterfront and water-view effect, is also stated to be strong. That evidence supports an adjustment, so it is not the weakest supported factor.
Option D: Size and quality.
Option D, the verified size/quality effect, is described as strong in the buyer evidence. It is well supported and therefore not the factor with the weakest support.
Evidence Sets the Adjustments
Adjust for what this market's buyers actually pay for, as shown by the evidence, not for what you assume they want.
How to use: Use this when a question asks which factor is or is not supported by market evidence.
Exam Tip
Read the stated facts carefully; when the stem says evidence shows no measurable effect, that factor lacks adjustment support in that market.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Making an adjustment based on assumed buyer preferences without evidence
- -Assuming a feature is unimportant in all markets because it is unimportant in one
- -Ignoring strongly supported time or location effects
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This question tests whether adjustments are grounded in market evidence for the specific market. Verified buyer evidence shows no measurable transit-proximity effect in this segment, but strong waterfront, size/quality and market-date effects. The factor with the weakest support for an adjustment is the one the evidence shows has no measurable effect.
Background Knowledge
Adjustments in the sales comparison approach must be market based, reflecting how buyers in the relevant market react to differences. When market evidence shows a characteristic affects value or marketability, the appraiser must consider it; when evidence shows no measurable effect, an adjustment lacks support.
Real-World Application
Appraising a lakefront home, an appraiser finds that sales near and far from a rail station sell at similar prices, while waterfront frontage and size drive large price differences. The appraiser makes no transit adjustment and documents the supporting analysis.
More Sales Comparison Questions
Market analysis confirms that seller financing at 3%, versus a 6% market rate, increased a comparable sale price. What adjustment removes that financing premium?
At the same effective date, reliable value indications support $800,000 for continued use of a property as improved and $500,000 for its cleared site. Immediate demolition costs $100,000. These are the only feasible alternatives, with no other costs or timing differences. Which alternative has the higher net value?
Other relevant conditions equal, growth in the number of households with effective purchasing power in a market tends to have which effect?
In a lakefront market, paired sales show that direct water frontage has the largest price effect of any feature. Which approach to comparable selection best follows from this evidence?
Which circumstance can cause highest and best use as improved to differ from highest and best use as though vacant?
A small group of buyers in a market looks for specialized features that are uncommon in the broader housing supply. What term describes this group?
A neighborhood analysis should include all of the following EXCEPT:
A site legally permits at most 40 units and can physically support 50. Supported comparable analyses find 30 and 40 units financially feasible, with 40 units producing the highest net land value after costs, timing and required return. Which use is maximally productive among these alternatives?
Market evidence isolates a subject value loss from off-site landfill odors. Which listed cause is an external-obsolescence influence?
Which proposed use cannot pass the legal-permissibility screen without evidence that the necessary permission is reasonably probable?
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
Previous Question
A profitable gas station operates while some nearby properties convert to retail. The appraiser has not yet studied whether redeveloping the gas station site would be feasible or when it could occur. What use conclusion is justified?
Next Question
A 10-acre site has a maximum FAR of 2.0, counting all floor area in this model. Assume four equal floor plates, with no tighter coverage, setback or other limit. What maximum footprint follows from FAR alone?