Statement — Many business offices are located in buildings having two to eight floors.\nRule — If a building has more than three floors, then that building has a lift (elevator).\n\nFrom the statement and the rule above, identify the conclusion that must be true in all cases.

Introduction / Context:
This verbal-reasoning item tests your ability to convert a conditional rule into sure-shot logical consequences while avoiding assumptions not guaranteed by the text. The stem states a domain (office buildings with 2–8 floors) and a conditional: “If a building has more than three floors, it has a lift.” Our job is to examine each option and keep only what must always be true given the rule, not what might be true in some real-life cases.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Universe: buildings with floors in the set {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} that host business offices.
• Rule: If floors > 3, then lift is present. Symbolically, floors > 3 → has_lift.
• No promise is made about buildings with ≤ 3 floors.
• No constraint is stated about which particular floors the lift serves, only that the building “has a lift.”

Concept / Approach:
Translate the conditional carefully and then test each option for necessity. Any statement that refers to buildings with 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 floors should follow directly. Any claim about 2 or 3 floors is not guaranteed. Any statement about lift service to particular floors (e.g., “only above third floor”) also goes beyond the given rule.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct a counterexample for options B–E: a 3-floor building without a lift violates none of the rules but falsifies B, D, E in their implied universality. A 2-floor building without a lift also shows C is not necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “has a lift” with “lift only serves certain floors,” and assuming facts about two- or three-storey buildings when the rule is only for > 3 floors.

Final Answer:
Every building that has five floors necessarily has a lift.