Increased rents would not cover the costs of improvements. Owners leaning against the improvements. Improvements will make the nearby housing, which they also own, more valuable. Therefore, they should make improvements.
The basic format here is X should do Y because it results in additional benefits for X even though its primary benefit is limited.
Let's look at (B):
Fishing season lasts only six months. Laketown fishing prefers renting boats. But since boats can be used for other purposes during the fishing season, it has made the wrong decision.
(B) is different because buying boats would not result in additional benefits for the company because they can only be used for other purposes during the fishing season, meaning it is possible to use rented boats for other purposes as well. This argument could parallel the reasoning in the stimulus more closely if boats could be used for other purposes outside the fishing season.
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any other questions.
faithwood21September 27, 2020
Hi, can we get a full explanation of the other answer choices please?
