ALF Corporation, the nations’ leading rental agent as well outright se

ALF Corporation, the nations’ leading rental agent as well outright seller, acquired hundreds of thousands of old tenements at throw away prices in the suburbs and modified them to fit modern requirements of office space. However in 2008, when severe recession set in, all of ALF’s prime properties could find neither buyers nor tenants. Many industry watchers thought that ALF might file Chapter eleven; surprisingly however, ALF did not feel the pinch much but sustained the lean period.

Which one of the following, if true, does most to help resolve the apparent paradox?

Author says that
- ALF bough property in Sub- Urban Area and made offices there
- In Recession all prime properties could find no buyer. Still ALF sustained.

Prethinking:
Now how can ALF sustain- Primary location tenants move to suburban are or any other source of income or may be ALF invested somewhere else ( in profitable sector)

(A ALF’s tenants who couldn’t afford high city rentals moved over to the suburban tenements - This choice clearly shows that Primary location tenants moved to sub uraban areas , giving profit to ALF.
(B) Effective transportation such as Metro transit, frequent buses, and private call taxies helped ALF to reach suburbs. _ OFS
(C) The city financial hub became desolated after many companies vacated prime locations in the city. - Irrelevant
(D) Many of ALF’s clients have deferred buying new properties - Irrelevant
(E) The recession has affected the software exporters more acutely than it did ALF - OFS

acquired hundreds of thousands of old tenements at throw away prices in the suburbs and modified them to fit modern requirements of office space

Option C The city financial hub became desolated after many companies vacated prime locations in the city
Can not it help the paradox as those companies moved to Sub urban as old tenements have been renovated to fit modern requirement of office space.

Hi, I thought on the same lines but then another thought occured which is, as the high rental locations are being vacated for lesser rental ones, the company stands to loose out in this case as well, of course the new property would not go waste but only at the cost existing HIGH VALUE property...so ALF is essentially loosing money.

spent too much time on answering 1 question

Can someone explain why C is incorrect and A is the OA? like saurabhsavant said, if the tenets move to suburban location wont ALF receive lower that what they were receiving?

tricky question.

Option A) ALF’s tenants who couldn’t afford high city rentals moved over to the suburban tenements

This option wants to convey: ALF's CURRENT TENNANT who reside in the suburban houses, couldn't afford the city rentals. It does not mean, the ones who emptied their houses in the city also lived in ALF's houses. They could have stayed elsewhere.

But still I think the option could have been formated in a better way.

Hope this makes sense and I am correct. At least this is what makes sense.