The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo

Question

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.

neha24 · Answer

my take E .by not receiving any money for these apartment these mid level employees are in compliance with the law

neha24 · Answer

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" !!

surya167 · Answer

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.

BangOn · Answer

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.

ISSOKireloaded · Answer

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

Carcass · Answer

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

surya167 · Answer

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.

Vercules · Answer

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

kapstone1996 · Answer

Went with E, if the renter and the company are in compliance, then they are not getting reimbursed.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards