Free ARE 5.0 PPD practice
ARE 5.0 PPD Practice Questions with Worked Explanations
Work three original PPD scenarios on site feasibility, structural-system selection and budget reconciliation. Review the reasoning for every option.
Reviewed for the current ReasonSpan™ exam profile · Updated October 18, 2026Practice the decision before opening the answer
Select one answer in each original educational example. Identify the controlling requirement, then expand the worked explanation. These three questions are a public study exercise, not a representative mock exam or a reproduction of NCARB items.
1. Reconcile zoning limits and the program
A 30,000-square-foot lot has a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.80 and maximum lot coverage of 40%. Setbacks allow a 10,000-square-foot footprint. The program needs 22,000 gross square feet. A two-story scheme has an 11,000-square-foot footprint; a three-story scheme has an 8,000-square-foot footprint. All floors have equal area. Both heights and the three-story arrangement are otherwise permitted. Which recommendation meets every stated limit and the program?
Show answer and worked explanation
Answer B: Use the three-story scheme because its footprint and total area satisfy the limits.
The FAR ceiling is 30,000 × 0.80 = 24,000 gross square feet. Coverage permits a 12,000-square-foot footprint, but the setback envelope reduces the usable footprint to 10,000 square feet.
The three-story scheme provides 3 × 8,000 = 24,000 gross square feet and has an 8,000-square-foot footprint. It is the only listed recommendation satisfying every stated condition.
Why each option does or does not fit
- A. Use the two-story scheme because its total area is below the FAR limit.
- Its 22,000-square-foot total meets FAR, but its 11,000-square-foot footprint exceeds the setback envelope.
- B. Use the three-story scheme because its footprint and total area satisfy the limits. · Correct
- Its 8,000-square-foot footprint fits the envelope and coverage limit; 24,000 gross square feet meets both the program and FAR.
- C. Reduce the two-story footprint to 10,000 square feet and retain two equal floors.
- This fits the footprint limits but provides only 20,000 gross square feet, below the required 22,000.
- D. Reject both schemes because the 40% coverage cap limits total floor area to 12,000 square feet.
- Coverage limits the building footprint. FAR separately controls the sum of the floor areas.
Remember the decision: Test FAR, coverage, setbacks and the required program separately before selecting a configuration.
2. Select a framing concept that fits
Use only the supplied preliminary design data. Depth includes the structure, required fire protection and services for each concept.
| Concept | Clear span | Combined depth | Cost index |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 60 ft | 42 in. | 100 |
| B | 60 ft | 32 in. | 112 |
| C | 45 ft | 28 in. | 92 |
| D | 60 ft | 36 in. | 118 |
A flexible community room requires a 60-foot clear span. The available combined depth is 36 inches and the maximum acceptable cost index is 115. No interior columns are permitted. Which concept satisfies every requirement?
Show answer and worked explanation
Answer B: Concept B
Apply each mandatory constraint to every concept. B is the only option that remains feasible after checking span, depth and cost together.
Do not choose the cheapest or shallowest concept until it satisfies all required conditions.
Why each option does or does not fit
- A. Concept A
- It meets span and cost, but its 42-inch depth exceeds the 36-inch allowance.
- B. Concept B · Correct
- It meets the 60-foot clear span, uses 32 inches of depth and has a cost index of 112.
- C. Concept C
- Its low cost and shallow depth do not compensate for failing the required 60-foot clear span.
- D. Concept D
- It meets span and depth but exceeds the maximum cost index of 115.
Remember the decision: A preferred attribute cannot compensate for a failed mandatory requirement.
3. Reconcile the design with the budget
A preliminary construction estimate is $4.80 million, excluding design fees and contingency. A required ventilation change adds $180,000 in construction cost. The owner permits a 5% contingency applied to the revised construction subtotal. The total construction-plus-contingency budget is $5.10 million. What minimum construction-cost reduction restores compliance without changing the contingency rate?
Show answer and worked explanation
Answer C: About $123,000
The revised subtotal is $4.98 million. With 5% contingency, the total becomes $5.229 million, an overrun of $129,000.
Let x be the construction reduction. Solve (4,980,000 − x) × 1.05 = 5,100,000. The reduction is $122,857.14, approximately $123,000. The contingency also decreases when the construction subtotal decreases.
Why each option does or does not fit
- A. About $129,000
- The $129,000 total overrun includes contingency. Reducing construction by that amount would remove more than the minimum required.
- B. About $120,000
- This uses the $120,000 gap between the budget and revised subtotal without accounting for the required contingency.
- C. About $123,000 · Correct
- The exact required construction reduction is $122,857.14; rounding to about $123,000 restores the budget.
- D. No reduction is needed.
- The revised construction subtotal is below the budget, but the required contingency pushes the total above it.
Remember the decision: Apply the contingency to the correct cost basis and solve for the scope of the requested reduction.
Transfer the method to a changed condition
- Site: lower FAR to 0.70 while retaining the 22,000-square-foot program. The resulting 21,000-square-foot ceiling makes the program infeasible under the stated conditions.
- Structure: increase the cost cap to 120. B and D then both meet the listed constraints, so a new preference criterion is needed to choose between them.
- Budget: apply contingency to a fixed original amount instead of the revised subtotal. The calculation changes because contingency no longer decreases with the construction reduction.