Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 02 Aug 2015, 13:07
GMAT Club Tests

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 134
Schools: HBS '16, Stanford '16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 52 [1] , given: 16

Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2013, 07:47
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

73% (01:59) correct 27% (00:44) wrong based on 75 sessions
Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

These are my doubts:
In B, does "with" change the meaning of the sentence?, is it ilogical?
In E, what kind of relationship between two clauses does a semicolon stablish? For example, when we use "AND" to connect two clauses, the AND implies that there is no relationship between those clauses. Both are independent. But when we use "OR", the relationship between the clauses is different. In that sense, does the semicolon stablish a relationship between the two clauses that it connects?
Also in E, does "therefore" affect the two clauses after it? I say this because, as I mentioned before, the two clauses connected by AND are independents from each other. Thanks!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1153
Location: United States
Followers: 189

Kudos [?]: 1846 [0], given: 123

Premium Member
Re: Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2013, 09:06
Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
Wrong. Parallelism problem.

B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
Wrong. Because a comma separates two clauses, "with" does not attach to the preceding clause thus it does not change meaning. Yet "with" does not make sense either.
Parallelism problem: see red part.

C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
Wrong. Parallelism problem.

D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
Wrong. Parallelism problem.

E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were
Correct. The semicolon separates two clauses. The clause before a semicolon is the main clause, the clause after a semicolon is dependent clause.
In addition, "and" is also used to connect two independent clauses, which provide more information for the main clause (the one before a semicolon). Because two results (fed prosecutors were...... & offenders were......) are different and happen simultaneously, thus "and" is correct.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 14
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Foster '17
GMAT Date: 01-14-2015
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [1] , given: 18

GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2013, 05:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
danzig wrote:
Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

These are my doubts:
In B, does "with" change the meaning of the sentence?, is it ilogical?
In E, what kind of relationship between two clauses does a semicolon stablish? For example, when we use "AND" to connect two clauses, the AND implies that there is no relationship between those clauses. Both are independent. But when we use "OR", the relationship between the clauses is different. In that sense, does the semicolon stablish a relationship between the two clauses that it connects?
Also in E, does "therefore" affect the two clauses after it? I say this because, as I mentioned before, the two clauses connected by AND are independents from each other. Thanks!
To answer your questions:
The "with" does change the meaning of the sentence insofar as it makes it not make sense. The reason we might miss this is because the with- clause has a who- clause embedded in it, distracting you from the fact that the with clause is missing something important.
Here's what that means.
(1) The iPhone 5c is extremely popular, with shoppers lining up overnight to buy it.
(2) The iPhone 5c is extremely popular, with shoppers who queued overnight leaving stores tired but satisfied.

If you look at (2), it would be grammatical, if a bit nonsensical, if we left out the who-clause (The iPhone 5c is popular, with shoppers leaving stores tired but satisfied.) The problem with B is that we don't have a verb to go with the noun federal prosecutors. Take a look at what happens when you take out the who- clause

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, with federal prosecutors, offenders being subject to relatively small penalties.

You need a verb to go with the noun federal prosecutors. This could be fixed as:

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, with federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being subject to relatively small penalties.


As to your second question, "therefore" is a really common word to come after a semi-colon. It doesn't change the meaning, but it does help to emphasize the causal link between the two clauses.

Hope that helps!
_________________

Please +1 KUDOS this post if you found it helpful! Thanks!

Re: Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act   [#permalink] 21 Sep 2013, 05:24
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting vyassaptarashi 5 01 Oct 2011, 07:51
1 sc comparison --> recent amendments skbjunior 4 18 Dec 2010, 12:13
SC - Act of congress humans 9 01 May 2009, 06:54
4 Experts publish their posts in the topic Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting neelesh 20 09 Apr 2008, 19:05
SC: Piracy imaru 2 08 Aug 2006, 08:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.