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
_________________