Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 19 Sep 2014, 00:08

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 170
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 29 [1] , given: 3

GMAT Tests User
Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink] New post 29 Jun 2010, 09:32
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (02:15) correct 30% (01:15) wrong based on 248 sessions
Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and operating a private aircraft that is used for business purposes. Thus, many American companies themselves purchase private aircraft. The vast majority of the business aviation fleet is owned by small and mid-size businesses, and flights are strictly for business purposes, with mostly mid-level employees on board. These companies and their boards of directors are in full compliance with the law and with what is best for their businesses.

Which of the following can be most properly inferred from the statements above?

A) The Federal law in question costs businesses money.
B) Most executives would rather fly on company owned planes than on commercial airlines.
C) Large businesses usually have their executives fly first or business class on commercial flights.
D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law.
E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 459
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 5

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 29 Jun 2010, 09:55
Its between A & E.
rest all can be ignored.

A incorrect --> no evidence about relative costs.

E correct -- > the executives following the company's guidelines also are fully complying with the law.

It's clearly stated that mid level employees use flights owned by the business

Hope this helps ~~~
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 164
Location: India
Schools: ISB
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 14

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 29 Jun 2010, 09:59
I will go with E
_________________

_________________
If you like my post, consider giving me a kudos. THANKS!

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Dec 2009
Posts: 227
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [1] , given: 3

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 29 Jun 2010, 11:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
A) The Federal law in question costs businesses money.
-- Though the federal law in question initially cost money to the business, eventually its beneficial for the business. They save money since they don't have to reimburse the money to their employees. Hence A is not a correct answer choice.

B) Most executives would rather fly on company owned planes than on commercial airlines.
-- New information. Hence B cannot be a correct answer choice.

C) Large businesses usually have their executives fly first or business class on commercial flights.
-- Nothing is mentioned about the large businesses. Hence C is a not a correct answer choice.

D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law.
-- Nothing is mentioned about upper level executives. Hence D cannot be a correct answer choice.

E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.
-- This is a correct answer choice. Since most mid-level executives travel in company's private jet, according to law they are not supposed to be reimbursed their money.
Thank You.

Thanks,
Akhil M.Parekh
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 228
Schools: Sloan R1, McCombs R1, Ross R1 (w/int), Haas R2, Kellogg R2
WE 1: Product Engineering/Manufacturing
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 26

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 29 Jun 2010, 11:38
I didn't like E. Why would an employee be reimbursed for a flight on a company-owned plane?

(I can see how it is the best choice in this case, however.)
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 29 Jun 2010, 11:49
michigancat wrote:
I didn't like E. Why would an employee be reimbursed for a flight on a company-owned plane?

(I can see how it is the best choice in this case, however.)


Right...I got stuck on this point alone... I chose E by POE because all the others were not making any sense.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Dec 2009
Posts: 227
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 3

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 29 Jun 2010, 11:53
michigancat,

In GMAT we always have to assume the premise put forward by author is correct. Author has its own reasoning. Here the assumption is - employee is supposed to pay for his travels to the company if he is using company's private jet. Though in real world this might not make sense.

I hope I was able to clear your doubts atleast to some extent. Thank You.

Thanks,
Akhil M.Parekh
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 139
GMAT 1: Q V
GMAT 2: 740 Q51 V38
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 40

Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 30 Jun 2010, 07:27
amp0201 wrote:
michigancat,

In GMAT we always have to assume the premise put forward by author is correct. Author has its own reasoning. Here the assumption is - employee is supposed to pay for his travels to the company if he is using company's private jet. Though in real world this might not make sense.

I hope I was able to clear your doubts atleast to some extent. Thank You.

Thanks,
Akhil M.Parekh

But the laws just prohibit reimbursement of an employee's jet, not of the company's jet!
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1561
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 6

Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 03 Jul 2010, 16:28
It is between A and E because B, C and D bring outside information.

Nothing is mentioned about costs in the argument.

Hence E.
Current Student
User avatar
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 471
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 24

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 15 Sep 2010, 05:50
Easy One
_________________

Kidchaos

http://www.laptopskinvault.com

Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheLaptopSkinVault
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/LaptopSkinVault

Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 5

Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2010, 09:56
Tricky one. (E).

tingle15 wrote:
Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and operating a private aircraft that is used for business purposes. Thus, many American companies themselves purchase private aircraft. The vast majority of the business aviation fleet is owned by small and mid-size businesses, and flights are strictly for business purposes, with mostly mid-level employees on board. These companies and their boards of directors are in full compliance with the law and with what is best for their businesses.

Which of the following can be most properly inferred from the statements above?

A) The Federal law in question costs businesses money. Nothing in the law forces the businesses to pay anything - in fact, all it does is PROHIBIT them from paying money.
B) Most executives would rather fly on company owned planes than on commercial airlines. No info is given on the preferences of executives.
C) Large businesses usually have their executives fly first or business class on commercial flights. The passage states that most private airplanes are owned by small/medium businesses, so this is trying to trick you into thinking that executives of large businesses must fly commercially (since their businesses don't buy private planes). But there's nothing that prevents those executives from owning their own planes - as long as they aren't reimbursed for them. Also, they could fly coach.
D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law. Again trying to trick you - because most flights are made by mid-level executives, upper level executives must be getting reimbursed. Again wrong, for similar reasons to (C).
E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law. This one tries to trick you with its wording. The law prohibits reimbursements for the employees' own planes, not the business's planes - so at a glance, this might seem irrelevant. But that's the point. It doesn't matter whether they receive reimbursements for these flights, because the planes in question don't fall under the law. So reimbursements or not, the executives on board are complying with the law.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 102
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2010, 10:07
i'll go with E.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: ISB, Hyderabad
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 176
WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 15

Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink] New post 03 Oct 2010, 16:20
E for me. As this was an inference question and we need to find something which valid and yet not in argument, I was debating between B & E.

B) Most executives would rather fly on company owned planes than on commercial airlines.
E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.

Eliminated B based on additional information related to commercial airlines.
_________________

-AD

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 57
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 12

Re: Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2013, 04:08
Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and operating a private aircraft that is used for business purposes. Thus, many American companies themselves purchase private aircraft. The vast majority of the business aviation fleet is owned by small and mid-size businesses, and flights are strictly for business purposes, with mostly mid-level employees on board. These companies and their boards of directors are in full compliance with the law and with what is best for their businesses.



It is been clearly stated that what is best for businesses and therefore
it must be true that they don't have problem with the law
if they would have problem then it would not be best for their businesses
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 388
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 32

CAT Tests
Re: Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink] New post 30 Dec 2013, 15:36
tingle15 wrote:
Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and operating a private aircraft that is used for business purposes. Thus, many American companies themselves purchase private aircraft. The vast majority of the business aviation fleet is owned by small and mid-size businesses, and flights are strictly for business purposes, with mostly mid-level employees on board. These companies and their boards of directors are in full compliance with the law and with what is best for their businesses.

Which of the following can be most properly inferred from the statements above?

A) The Federal law in question costs businesses money.
B) Most executives would rather fly on company owned planes than on commercial airlines.
C) Large businesses usually have their executives fly first or business class on commercial flights.
D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law.
E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.
I didn't select E because I thought though board of directors could be in full compliance of Law(Federal Law/State Law/Church Law/abcd Law etc etc)[as per last statement], it was never mentioned that mid-level employees on board are in compliance with every law. Is this line of thinking wrong to discard E that E didn't specify the law boundaries specifically for mid-level employees?

I selected A because it implicitly specified that the boundaries of Law(Federal in this case). The businesses will definitely be purchasing private aircrafts as per the second statement(highlighted above). How could this option be wrong?
_________________

If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that!
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough.
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip.

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 325
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '16, IIMA (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 43 [1] , given: 47

Re: Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink] New post 01 Jan 2014, 07:51
1
This post received
KUDOS
Due to Federal law companies tells its employee ---- If you use your own aircraft for business purpose you wont get reimbursement....probably because reimbursement will be higher than economy class ticket on commercial airline...

Instead, many American companies themselves purchase private aircraft. You can't be paid reimbursement for what you have'nt spent....

so i dont violate the law for receiving free ride and not receiving reimbursement...rightfully so as i don't have any bills to put my claim....

WHAT CAN BE INFERRED......
A) The Federal law in question costs businesses money. In a long run ...this arrangement may be cheaper....INCORRECT
B) Most executives would rather fly on company owned planes than on commercial airlines. ...WHO KNOW'S? INCORRECT
C) Large businesses usually have their executives fly first or business class on commercial flights. ...NOWHERE INFERRED... INCORRECT...
D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law. ........NOWHERE INFERRED... INCORRECT...
E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.... CORRECT....


KUDOS IF YOU PLEASE....
Re: Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any   [#permalink] 01 Jan 2014, 07:51
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 Experts publish their posts in the topic Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing creativeminddu 1 18 Nov 2013, 20:04
1 Experts publish their posts in the topic The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any Vercules 11 14 Mar 2013, 20:17
1 Business Law CocknoseMF 2 14 Jan 2012, 08:57
1 SC - federal law maulikmajithia 7 15 Jun 2008, 18:03
Civil libertarian: The categorical prohibition of any jyotsnasarabu 4 24 Nov 2006, 11:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.