GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 15 Jun 2019, 21:53

### 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

# The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 469
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2013, 21:17
2
2
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:50) correct 24% (02:04) wrong based on 323 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.

_________________
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### 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
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### 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" !!
Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### 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
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 117
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### 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.
Intern
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 22
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### 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
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3360
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### 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
_________________
Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### 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
Senior Manager
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 469
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### 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
_________________
Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2017
Posts: 72
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 3.1
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2019, 09:19
Went with E, if the renter and the company are in compliance, then they are not getting reimbursed.
Re: The Housing law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees fo   [#permalink] 09 Jan 2019, 09:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by