It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 19:30

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any

### What is the difficulty level of this question

You may select 1 option
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 485

Kudos [?]: 2269 [1], given: 82

Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2013, 21:17
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (01:16) correct 28% (01:17) wrong based on 191 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Kudos [?]: 2269 [1], given: 82

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 132

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 120

Kudos [?]: 134 [0], given: 16

Location: India
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2013, 05:24
B?? cant think of any other options

Kudos [?]: 134 [0], given: 16

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 132

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

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" !!

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 3

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1077

Kudos [?]: 646 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2013, 08:53
Hi
I would like to vote for E.
Lets wait for the OA....

Archit

Kudos [?]: 646 [0], given: 70

Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 136

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 22

### Show Tags

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.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 22

Intern
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 25

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

Concentration: Entrepreneurship

### Show Tags

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

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

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3355

Kudos [?]: 9043 [0], given: 1152

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2013, 05:41

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 [?]: 9043 [0], given: 1152

Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 2

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 205

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 46

Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2013, 07:36
Hi
I would like to vote for E.I think E is the answer

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 46

Senior Manager
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 485

Kudos [?]: 2269 [0], given: 82

Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42

### Show Tags

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
_________________

Kudos [?]: 2269 [0], given: 82

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2017, 16:44
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any   [#permalink] 26 Aug 2017, 16:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by