|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 173
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 3
|
Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
 29 Jun 2010, 10:32
Question Stats:
69% (02:08) correct
30% (01:21) wrong based on 79 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 453
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 5
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
29 Jun 2010, 10:55
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
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 167
Location: India
Schools: ISB
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 14
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
29 Jun 2010, 10:59
I will go with E
_________________
_________________
If you like my post, consider giving me a kudos. THANKS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 24 Dec 2009
Posts: 228
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
20
[1] , given: 3
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
29 Jun 2010, 12:24
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
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 229
Schools: Sloan R1, McCombs R1, Ross R1 (w/int), Haas R2, Kellogg R2
WE 1: Product Engineering/Manufacturing
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 26
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
29 Jun 2010, 12:38
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
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1482
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 13
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
29 Jun 2010, 12:49
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
Joined: 24 Dec 2009
Posts: 228
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 3
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
29 Jun 2010, 12:53
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
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 141
GMAT 1: Q V
GMAT 2: 740 Q51 V38
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
41
[0], given: 40
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
30 Jun 2010, 08:27
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
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1568
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
123
[0], given: 6
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
03 Jul 2010, 17:28
It is between A and E because B, C and D bring outside information.
Nothing is mentioned about costs in the argument.
Hence E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 472
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 24
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
15 Sep 2010, 06:50
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
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 226
Location: Boston
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
54
[0], given: 5
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
28 Sep 2010, 10:56
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
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 104
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 13
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
28 Sep 2010, 11:07
i'll go with E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: ISB, Hyderabad
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 177
WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 15
|
Re: CR: Federal law [#permalink]
03 Oct 2010, 17:20
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
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 53
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 8
|
Re: Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
11 Jun 2013, 05:08
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any
[#permalink]
11 Jun 2013, 05:08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
