Rent Transparency: Two Readings of the Same Data
Two passages discuss a city's 2019 rent-transparency ordinance. Passage A reports that after the law, 1,200 listings disclosed mandatory fees and that average search time fell from nine weeks to seven; it concludes that disclosure corrected an information asymmetry that had favored landlords. Passage B accepts the search-time data but notes that base rents in the same listings rose by an average of 6 percent, roughly matching the formerly hidden fees, and argues that the ordinance changed which costs were salient, not the total price. Passage B does not dispute Passage A's figures.
1. What is the relationship between Passage A and Passage B?
Read the worked answer
Passage B accepts Passage A's evidence but disputes its interpretation. Both accept the search-time decline and the 1,200 disclosures; B adds that base rents rose about 6 percent, roughly offsetting the formerly hidden fees. A concludes that disclosure corrected an information asymmetry favoring landlords; B concludes that disclosure changed salience, not total price. The disagreement is about welfare and bargaining power, not about the data. This is the classic comparative-reading pattern: agreement on facts, conflict over meaning.
2. What would Passage A's author most likely say in response to Passage B?
Read the worked answer
Passage A's author would likely argue that lower search time is itself a benefit even if total price is unchanged, because search costs are real costs to renters. Alternatively, A might claim that salience increases competition over time, so the 6 percent base-rent rise is transitional. A would not deny B's figures, since B does not dispute A's data. The strongest response is to separate search-cost savings from price levels: A's information-asymmetry claim can survive even if total prices are sticky.
3. What new information would most strengthen Passage B?
Read the worked answer
Evidence from a control city without the ordinance showing the same 6 percent base-rent rise would strengthen B by suggesting the increase was not caused by the law. Alternatively, evidence that landlords' total revenue was unchanged while search time fell would support B's salience interpretation. The key is a comparison that isolates the ordinance's effect. A finding that renters saved money overall would strengthen A instead, because it would show a welfare gain beyond search time.