Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any

[jdoong]

Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and operating a private aircraft that is used for business purposes. Thus, many American companies themselves purchase private aircraft. The vast majority of the business aviation fleet is owned by small and mid-size businesses, and flights 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 Federal law in question costs businesses money.
B. Most executives would rather fly on company owned planes than on commercial airlines.
C. Large businesses usually have their executives fly first or business class on commercial flights.
D. Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law.
E. By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.


This question was my Q2 from CAT1. I understand why answers A-D are incorrect now, but my question is in regard to answer E (the correct answer). I get why the executives are complying with the law, but it seems like the whole statement is irrelevant and pointless to what is stated in the paragraph. Why would they receive reimbursements for flying on company aircraft when the issue in the first place had to do with employees not be able to reimbursed for owning and operating their own aircraft? Why would you even need to say that by not receiving reimbursements they are complying with the law when that was never the issue in the first place? It would even make more sense to just say that they are complying with the law, wouldn't it?

Is it common for the GMAT to provide answer choices like this that are irrelevant but true?

[mschwrtz]

Are correct answers to "draw an inference" questions often "irrelevant but true"? The short answer is "yes."

The longer answer begins with another question: Irrelevant to what? If you mean irrelevant to the conclusion/main point of the argument, then step back a bit and reconsider the nature of a "draw an inference" question. The task in such a question is to recognize which answer must be true if the statements in the stimulus are true. Some stimuli will be arguments, with conclusions and premises and assumptions, and some will not. In neither case need the correct answer speak to whatever big issue the stimulus seems designed to address. Notice, too, that E mentions nothing that did not appear in the stimulus.

Incidentally, I like answer E a good deal more in it's current form:

E. By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.

than in the form you suggest:

E. The mid-level executives on board these flights are complying with the law.

The first suggests only that they are complying with the law in receiving no reimbursement, while the second suggests that they are complying with the law generally. Since "the law" can mean a complete body of laws, the second suggests that they're not...oh...selling milk past it's expiration date, or conspiring to overthrow the government.

[t_n28]

I don't understand why A is wrong?
"the argument says "Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any employees for the cost of owning and operating a private aircraft that is used for business purposes. THUS, many American companies themselves purchase private aircraft."
As a result of the law, American companies are buying these planes. Answer E explains that employees are not reimbursed for flying on company-owned planes. However, the law talks about prohibiting employee reimbursement for OWNING and OPERATING personal air crafts. Nothing in the argument talks about what's forbidden and what is not when the companies themselves own the planes.
Would you please clarify whether I am missing anything here?
Thanks!

[tim]

Yes you are definitely missing something. If you want to claim that A is the answer, you must be prepared to demonstrate that this law costs businesses money. Nothing in the argument has suggested that; for all we know, it may be cheaper for them to buy their own planes than to reimburse their employees..

[prepgmat09]

I have a doubt related to this question.

The stimulus mentions, "Thus, many American companies themselves purchase private aircraft."

This means that the companies purchase private aircraft because of the law. Otherwise, they wouldn't have purchased. And this shows that not buying an aircraft is probably a more economic solution for the companies. So, A seemed a better choice to me.

Moreover, E mentions, "By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law."

But employees were never supposed to get reimbursed for air-crafts owned by the company. It is as good as saying, "By not committing a homicide, the mid-level executives on board are complying with the law.". I am not sure if this would be a valid inference that could be drawn from this argument.

Could you please help answer my question?

Thanks.

[tim]

Maybe purchasing their own aircraft was more economical all along, but the companies just never thought to check on the prices until the law came about. This is a perfectly acceptable scenario that would most definitely not lead to the conclusion that the law costs businesses money..