Private Aircraft (MGMAT CAT Verbal CR Test # 2)

[Milanproda1]

I saw that this question has been posted in the past, but none of the replies answered my specific question, so I decided to open a new thread.


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.

The word *executives* is not mentioned at all in the passage. How can we presume that the mid level employees are executives and not regular workers? Are we suppose to assume that mid level is equal to executive?

[anjana_deepakrao]

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. --- no question of costs so out of scope

B. Most executives would rather fly on company owned planes than on commercial airlines. rtoo generic

C. Large businesses usually have their executives fly first or business class on commercial flights.
out of scope

D. Upper level executives are less often in compliance with the law.
out of scope.

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

is the answer E?

[Milanproda1]

Yes the OA is E.

But not mentioning executives at all is out of scope IMO. Its like saying "By not receiving any reimbursement for these flights, the mid-level INTERNS on board are complying with the law."
Neither executives or interns are mentioned, should we take a leap of faith and take for granted that mid level workers are all executives?

[jnelson0612]

It's a small quibble with the argument and you have something of a point, milan; however, it is reasonable to assume that "mid-level" employees at a corporation are executives. They are likely not interns or administrative assistants. Did you find another answer that is more supported by the facts above?

[gurvindersingh2004]

@Jamie / Ron Could an expert please tell why A is out ?
The stimulus does say that the federal laws have compelled business to maintain their own aircraft and aircraft costs money . so why is not appropriate to infer that the laws cost businesses money.
There is another thread on BTg that discusses the CR .But i thought of posting the question here .
One could say that there is nothing in this stimulus to infer that owning their own aircraft costs businesses more money than reimbursing their employees would . But even then owning and maintaining their own aircraft does cost businesses money ,however less the costs may be .

[jnelson0612]

@Jamie / Ron Could an expert please tell why A is out ?
The stimulus does say that the federal laws have compelled business to maintain their own aircraft and aircraft costs money . so why is not appropriate to infer that the laws cost businesses money.
There is another thread on BTg that discusses the CR .But i thought of posting the question here .
One could say that there is nothing in this stimulus to infer that owning their own aircraft costs businesses more money than reimbursing their employees would . But even then owning and maintaining their own aircraft does cost businesses money ,however less the costs may be .

In a question such as this one, you have to ask yourself, "given that the statements above are true, which of these answer choices MUST be true?" Answer choice A does not have to be true based on this answer choice; it might be, or it might not be.

E, on the other hand, MUST be true--by not receiving reimbursement the executives are following the law.

[benkriger]

I have a problem with OA answer choice E.

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

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

---
We don't know if E is true or not. Just because they do not receive any reimbursements for these flights, does not mean the executives are complying with the law. The law is pretty vague, pretty large, and pretty complex. So is this answer...

However, with answer choice A, "The Federal law in question costs businesses money"... we know that some businesses have purchased or maintained air planes. Although the "law" is not actually "in question" in the prompt... this still cost businesses money. Even if over-all they saved money, it still at one point, cost them money. Even if over the long term it may have saved them some money - it still cost money...

Insights?

[tim]

they may not be complying with the law in every aspect of their personal and professional lives, but they most definitely are complying with the law by not receiving any reimbursement. please do not go out of your way to attach an absurd meaning to an answer choice when a clear and correct interpretation is obvious..