|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 450
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
Followers: 87
Kudos [?]:
365
[0], given: 75
|
The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
 14 Mar 2013, 21:17
Question Stats:
65% (02:43) correct
34% (01:19) wrong based on 1 sessions
The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and renting a luxurious apartment that is used for business purposes. Thus, many Canadian companies themselves purchase luxurious apartments. The vast majority of the business housing colonies are owned by small and mid-size businesses, and accommodations 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 Housing law of 1989 in question costs businesses money. B) Most executives would rather use company owned luxurious apartments than use commercial luxury apartments. C) Large businesses usually have their executives stay in semi-luxurious or ordinary commercial apartments. D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law. E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these luxurious apartments, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.
_________________
Press Kudos if you want to say thanks
Ultimate Reading Comprehension Encyclopedia | Ultimate Sentence Correction Encyclopedia | GMAT Prep Software Analysis and What If Scenarios -- VERBAL | GMAT Prep Software Analysis and What If Scenarios -- IR
Please Read and Follow the 9 Rules of Posting in Verbal Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 95
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
14 Mar 2013, 21:26
my take E .by not receiving any money for these apartment these mid level employees are in compliance with the law
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 121
Location: India
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 15
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
15 Mar 2013, 05:24
B?? cant think of any other options
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 95
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
15 Mar 2013, 05:54
B is big no !! in fact there are 2 problems with B uses "Most executives" where as the premise is talking of most mid level employees , who knows mid level employees form just a portion of total number of executives !! and also we can't be so sure of future preferences of "most executives" !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 943
Location: India
GMAT Date: 05-29-2013
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
91
[0], given: 57
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
15 Mar 2013, 08:53
Hi
I would like to vote for E.
Lets wait for the OA....
Archit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 63
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 1
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
15 Mar 2013, 10:54
My take would be C. They have explained about small and medium sized businesses not renting out apartments. That leaves us with large business houses.
_________________
One Last Shot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 102
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 17
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
15 Mar 2013, 11:57
Vercules wrote: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and renting a luxurious apartment that is used for business purposes. Thus, many Canadian companies themselves purchase luxurious apartments. The vast majority of the business housing colonies are owned by small and mid-size businesses, and accommodations 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 Housing law of 1989 in question costs businesses money.
B) Most executives would rather use company owned luxurious apartments than use commercial luxury apartments.
C) Large businesses usually have their executives stay in semi-luxurious or ordinary commercial apartments.
D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law.
E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these luxurious apartments, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.
OA after discussion My take is E. Mid level employees is talked about in argument. B is incorrect because it says most executives. We need to focus that most of mid level executives are complying and not all types of executives. C and D is incorrect because large businesses and upper level executives participation is not discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 25
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 5
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
15 Mar 2013, 13:16
E looks to be the most sound inference.
A- Out of scope
B- Poor assumption
C- Out of scope, large businesses are not part of the discussion.
D- Out of scope
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1749
Followers: 56
Kudos [?]:
582
[0], given: 467
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
16 Mar 2013, 05:41
E is straight the answer A) The Housing law of 1989 in question costs businesses money. Out of scope B) Most executives would rather use company owned luxurious apartments than use commercial luxury apartments. Comparison irrelevant C) Large businesses usually have their executives stay in semi-luxurious or ordinary commercial apartments. i didn't see ordinary D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law. No upper level E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these luxurious apartments, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law. Correct, accordingly with the statement
_________________
KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 63
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 1
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
16 Mar 2013, 06:22
BangOn wrote: Vercules wrote: My take is E. Mid level employees is talked about in argument.
B is incorrect because it says most executives. We need to focus that most of mid level executives are complying and not all types of executives.
C and D is incorrect because large businesses and upper level executives participation is not discussed. This is an inference question. When small and mid-level companies/businesses are discussed, only ones that are left are Large businesses. This need not be mentioned explicitly in the passage but can surely be inferred.
_________________
One Last Shot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 322
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
30
[0], given: 46
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
16 Mar 2013, 07:36
Hi
I would like to vote for E.I think E is the answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 450
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
Followers: 87
Kudos [?]:
365
[0], given: 75
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any [#permalink]
16 Mar 2013, 11:05
Vercules wrote: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and renting a luxurious apartment that is used for business purposes. Thus, many Canadian companies themselves purchase luxurious apartments. The vast majority of the business housing colonies are owned by small and mid-size businesses, and accommodations 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 Housing law of 1989 in question costs businesses money.
B) Most executives would rather use company owned luxurious apartments than use commercial luxury apartments.
C) Large businesses usually have their executives stay in semi-luxurious or ordinary commercial apartments.
D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law.
E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these luxurious apartments, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law. Hi Fellas, Updated the post with OA and OE.
According to the statements, the companies that own luxurious apartments for business use are fully in compliance with the relevant law, which is summarized. A correct inference must follow from the premises given and must be true as per the stimulus.A) The Housing law of 1989 in question costs businesses money. It does not have to be true that the law costs the businesses money, as no evidence about the relative costs is given.B) Most executives would rather use company owned luxurious apartments than use commercial luxury apartments. This choice is an irrelevant comparison, as the preferences of the executives are not the concern of the statements.C) Large businesses usually have their executives stay in semi-luxurious or ordinary commercial apartments. This choice does not have to follow, as there is no information given about the housing arrangements made by large companies. The statements only indicate that the majority of luxurious apartments are not owned by large companies.D) Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law. There is no information given about the housing arrangements of upper level executives and no reason to believe that those with the companies discussed do not comply with their companies’ policies.E) By not receiving any reimbursement for these luxurious apartments, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law. Correct. If, as the statements indicate, the companies are in full compliance with this law, it must be true that the executives following their guidelines also are.Vercules
_________________
Press Kudos if you want to say thanks
Ultimate Reading Comprehension Encyclopedia | Ultimate Sentence Correction Encyclopedia | GMAT Prep Software Analysis and What If Scenarios -- VERBAL | GMAT Prep Software Analysis and What If Scenarios -- IR
Please Read and Follow the 9 Rules of Posting in Verbal Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any
[#permalink]
16 Mar 2013, 11:05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
