The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the

This is a tough and good question for me , IMO C , Explainations below

A passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later. - wrong

B the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell - wrong

C the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling - correct

D the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell - wrong , what is "it" referring to -> proliferation or Act

E the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling -- wrong , no clear reference

Tommy

That was eye opener. Yes I agree "it" is not ambiguous in D. The answer is between C and D. I was browsing through my notes and found that "intent to" is also idiomatic. Please can you throw some light on this.

Also isn't "they" ambiguous in choice B?

Kudos on the post !

thanks

Hey Hey.

Hmm, as far as I know, there is no idiom "intent to". You're probably thinking of the verb "intend", which indeed ought to be followed by "to", as in "I intend to leave San Francisco at the first available opportunity." With the noun "intent", the idiom is "sole intent of SOMETHING-ing", as we see in D. C is not actually correct in saying "intent to".

As for ambiguity, it's an iffy issue to begin with. In B, while you're technically correct that the pronoun "they" COULD refer to either "those (who...etc.)" or "companies", the fact is that it's fairly clear that we're referring to "those", because we're still modifying it: those WHO (register domain names) WITH the sole intent THAT they will sell...

If you see what I mean, we're still talking about the same "those". Now, what's more problematic is that we're using both "those" and "they" to talk about the same noun, which isn't even in the sentence! So it's definitely problematic, just more totally screwed up than simple ambiguity.

Hope that makes sense!

-t

For the original poster--I think you're asking if parallelism makes you say "led to the passage of"? If so, then yes, and that split is a really efficient way to tackle this question. The structure is:

"The proliferation (action noun)....led to...the passage (action noun)." (B and C)

Choice B violates the rule that tells you a comma followed by "which" must immediate follow the noun being modified: in choice B, this noun is "1999" rather than "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act." That leaves us with C. Quick and clean!


For noboru: I can see why you might think you need an object for "selling"--when we use "sell" as a verb it usually does come attached to the thing we're selling. It can however, be used as an intransitive verb (ex: I invented a new widget and am marketing it on the internet...I really hope it sells!). Additionally, notice that the participle "selling" follows the preposition "of" in choice C (and E, which is incorrect for other reasons mentioned by posters above). Here, "selling" is functioning as a *noun* -- the action of selling-- so we're in safe waters.

There is no isssue regarding the idiom. Both are correct.

Oxford dictionary:

intention / noun
~ (of doing sth) | ~ (to do sth) | ~ (that...) what you intend or plan to do; your aim:
I have no intention of going to the wedding. * He has announced his intention to retire. * It was not my intention that she should suffer. * He left England with the intention of travelling in Africa. * I have every intention of paying her back what I owe her. * The original intention was to devote three months to the project. * She's full of good intentions but they rarely work out. * I did it with the best (of) intentions (= meaning to help), but I only succeeded in annoying them.

So you may use both intention of and intention to.

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

A) passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling –- The proliferation by itself can not lead to the passing of the act. There must be somebody to pass the act is missing. ‘Led to’ needs either a noun or a noun phrase or a gerund to follow it. ‘Passing the act; is not a gerund; ‘Passing of’ the act is a gerund.

B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell - which modifies 1999; it should modify the act.
C) the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling----- correct modification of which. Right answer.


D) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows the companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell—---what does it refer to; the subject proliferation or the act?

E) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell— -----and allowing companies is wrong in the context. If you use ‘and’, a coordinate conjunction, the structure needs a clause with verb. Allowing is not a verb but a present participle.

While "the passage of" might seem a little awkward at first, try ignoring the lengthy modifier between the first two commas to see the underlying structure:

THE PROLIFERATION...led to...[something else]

Potential parallelism issue! We want the thing that follows to be a noun, and there is an extant noun form of "passing" that is not being used--"passage." So if you recognized that on your initial read you can cross off A.

B and C use "passage," and D and E use the name of the act itself-- both these options are acceptable.

As a few people have pointed out above, B violates the ", which" rule-- 1999 is not the thing that allowed companies to seek damages. Eliminate. (diebeatsthegmat is also correct in identifying "they" as ambiguous--double whammy!)

(D) uses the pronoun "it," which is one of those red-flag pronouns--make sure "it" has a clear and correct antecedent. There are a couple of singular nouns before "it" in the sentence, so we have a slightly ambiguous situation. Sometimes pronoun ambiguity is tolerated, but the structure here implies the actual antecedent here is the wrong one.

SUBJECT-VERB...and...SUBJECT-VERB
THE PROLIFERATION led to...and IT (the PROLIFERATION) allows
--That's not the intended meaning! Eliminate.


So now we're down to C and E.

The structure of C is good--
The proliferation...led to...the passage...of the...Act, which allows companies to seek....damages.

The structure of E is not--
The proliferation...led to..the Act, PASSED and ALLOWING...
(not parallel)
Additionally, "they" is potentially ambiguous. Another double-whammy-- E is out.

That leaves us with C!

Meaning
The Sentence talks about the Law i.e anti cyber law. i.e Anti cyber allows companies to file damages..


Lets analyze the sentence

The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

Blue Italics is Noun Modifier -Modifying Cybersquatters i.e giving additional information about Cyber squatters. You can easily cross it off.
Hence, sentence becomes


The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

Lets breakdown into CLauses and see if Subject Verb makes sense

Clause 1 - The proliferation -led
Clause 2- who register

Pronoun Error Validation -
Note - Usually, for demonstrative Pronoun "THOSE", we need Noun following it, such as-
Many people consider these products unique.

Here, the usage of THOSE is correct, because the word "People" is used in Ellipsis construction

Them -> Them refers to domains (both are plural, hence correct)

Modifier-
, allowing companies ....later.
Since, the sentence does have cause effect relationship, hence COMMA +ING works perfectly over here.

Modifier 2 -
with the sole intent of selling them later - it is prepositional modifier used as adverbial modifier, modifying "who register"

As of now, Choice A looks good.

Lets Analyze other options -


B. The passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with sole intent that they will sell - Making it RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE, per original meaning cause effect is missing. What is they referring to ? COMPANIES.. hence Incorrect
C. The passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling- Same as that of B, with the sole intent of selling ...selling WHAT--TWO TIMES 1999
D. The Anit- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell --> IT -> proliferation allows?? It is not proliferation that allows , it is the law that allows the companies... Hence Changes MEANING
E. The Anit- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to seek up to $ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling -- The proliferation led to Anti Consumer ACT, I doubt...Moreover, passed and allowing CHANGES MEANING, giving equal emphasis on two actions, "passed" and "allowing" -> Not correct.

HENCE (A)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found helpful, please provide KUDOS so that I can unlock my GMAT CLUB tests

Hi targetbschool, the very first word of the underlined portion is the problem. Ignoring the unnecessary modifiers, we have: The proliferation(...) led to passing the Act. Who's doing the passing? Much better as a noun "The proliferation led to the passage..." If such a choice is available.

Thanks!
-Ron

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

"led to passing" is not idiomatic in option A.

B the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell
In B which refers to the year 1999: incorrect
C the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
C is the correct option.
D the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell
E the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
D has a mistake of this kind: "the ACT -modifier- and it allows". If you read the whole sentence, it seems to say that "The proliferation lead to the act and allows": this sentence has not the correct structure.
E is not parallel "Act passed and it allows", moreover the structure of the sentence is not correct (see D).

This is an old thread but it was the QOTD today and I disagree with a lot of the explanations here, especially with respect to answer D, so I just wanted to point a few things out:

One big missed issue here is with the modifier dealing with allowing/allows. This modifier must describe the act (and not the passage of the act, though that doesn't happen here) because it is the act that allows companies to seek damages. A and B violate this rule because "in 1999" is in the way. BUT BE CAREFUL about this. We cannot just see another modifier in the way and assume it is wrong. Which of the following is correct?

I want the box of pencils that are red.
I want the box of pencils that is red.

Actually, both are correct, depending on the meaning. Let's look at the grammar. In the first, "that are red" is clearly modifying the "pencils". However, in the second, "that is red" cannot modify "pencils" because of subject/verb agreement, so it must modify "box". But, isn't "of pencils" in the way? No - here there is actually no problem because "of pencils" is describing the box as well. Therefore, "that is red" is describing "the box of pencils" and the modifier "of pencils" is not in the way.

So why is "in 1999" in the way? Because it is an adjective for the noun "passage" (tells us when the passage occurred) - not an adjective to describe the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act itself. Look at it this way: we can refer to "the box of pencils" as one noun, but does it make sense to refer to "the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999" as one noun? No. If it were "of 1999", then it would describe the noun, but it is "in 1999", which tells us when it was passed. (See noun-modifiers-can-modify-slightly-far-away-noun-135868.html, especially the two Mr. Smith examples.)

The modifier order in C sounds a little awkward because we normally would use "passage of ___" and then put the time "in 1999" at the end, but C must be constructed that way so that the modifier can correctly describe the act instead of the year. (This is a great example of why you shouldn't use just your ear.) It might now seem that "in 1999" is between "the passage" and the modifying prepositional phrase "of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", but this is okay because they can both be describing "the passage".

So why not D and E? I don't think it is wrong to say that the proliferation led to the Act itself. This brings up a good point: just because there is a difference on GMAT SC doesn't mean that one way must be correct and another must be wrong (this is a HUGE false assumption by most test takers). I also don't think it is wrong to say "intent to sell". In fact, "intent to sell" is a common legal term. I do, however, think that "intent that they will sell" is wrong, partially because it is not idiomatic and partially because "they" is odd there unless it refers to someone else selling them. It should either be "intent of" or "intent to". This knocks out E. (Also, do not eliminate E just because of bad parallelism - "passed" and "allowing" actually ARE parallel because they are both participle phrases. See scientists-have-recently-discovered-what-could-be-the-9394.html.)

D is more tricky. (By the way TommyWallach, there is no comma problem in D because the comma before the "and" is part of the "which" modifier, so we ignore it when analyzing the grammar of the parallel construction; furthermore, it is permissible to put commas before "and" in a list of two things when they are both independent clauses. See FANBOYS.) Here is the controlling GMAT rule here: If there are two clauses and the subject of the second clause is a pronoun, then that pronoun should match the subject of the first sentence. D violates this because then "it" would have to refer to "the proliferation", and the proliferation is not what "allows companies to seek" damages - it is the act that allows this.

Hi! I am assuming when you say "preposition", you mean "pronoun".

Also, "in 1999" is not an "adjective", but "adverb" (since it answers "when").

Also I believe that D is wrong because it is not parallel:

..the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages

which was passed in 1999: Dependent clause
it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages: Independent clause

Dependent clause and Independent clause cannot be parallel. It should be:

..the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages

Thanks! I typed that up too fast and missed that!


I thought this at first too, but then C would be wrong. Here is C again:

"The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters ... led to the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act"

We are dealing with a noun and its adjective: "the passage ... of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act". If "in 1999" is an adverb for the verb led, then the adverb "in 1999" would be between the noun "the passage" and its adjective "of the Anti...". You would have [noun A], [adverb], [adjective for noun A]. That is not allowed - an adjective must touch its noun or at least be part of a series of adjectives for its noun. So then the adjective "of the Anti..." would not be allowed to describe "the passage" and would have to describe "1999", which doesn't make any sense.

So how could "in 1999" be an adjective? Just because it mentions time doesn't mean it has to describe a verb. What about "the test on Monday will be hard"? Here, "on Monday" is describing time, but it is telling us about "the test", which is a noun. Therefore, it is about time, but it is an adjective.

C is an awkwardly worded construction and we would normally want to put references to time at the end (it is still correct because the others have worse issues than being a little awkward), but it would be grammatically wrong if "in 1999" is describing the verb "led", so here "in 1999" would have to tell us about "the passage" (specifically, when that noun happened, just like the example I gave about the test on Monday). Again, this seems odd to me, so I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I don't see how C could be grammatically correct otherwise.


That's an interesting thought and you are correct in that we need to parallel "which ..., which ..., and which..." when we are dealing with lists, but be careful of the level. While that would work (though be careful about that second comma), D is also parallel as written because it is a list of independent clauses (SVO and SVO). The "which ..." modifier is a small part of the main independent clause. If we collapse some of the modifiers, the sentence reads:

"The proliferation ... led to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ... and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages ..."

Here, we have two clauses "The proliferation ... led ..." and "it allows ...", so they are parallel. Again, the "which ..." is an adjective inside the first independent clause, so there is no problem because it is not in a list with the last part.

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

(A) passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell

(C) the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

(D) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell

(E) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja This question is extremely challenging. Can we use "passing" in (A)? Does the conjunction "and" in (D) and (E) use correctly? Which one is the correct usage of verb/meaning "led to passing/the passage/Act"? Which one is correct "intent to/intent of/intent that"?

This sentence has idiomatic error in the expression – led to passing. The correct expression is “led to the passage of xyz”.
The sentence uses the - X led to passing Y. This expression is not idiomatically correct. It should be – X led to the passage of Y. Consider a similar example:

The flood led to damaging the houses. – Incorrect
The flood led to the damage of the houses. – Correct

Choice A: Incorrect: Idiom Error as explained above

Choice B: Incorrect: Modifier Error: “which” modifier appears to modify “1999”, whereas it should modify “the Protection Act”. Note here that we cannot consider “Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACCP Act) in 1999” as a noun phrase and hence we cannot say that “which” modifier modifies “ACCP Act”. This is because “in 1999” is not associated with ACCP Act. “In 1999” describes the timing of “passage of act”. Thus, from the structure of this sentence, “which” modifier modifies the closest noun “1999” and hence is incorrect.

Choice C: Correct

Choice D: Incorrect
1: Meaning Error: The intended meaning of the sentence is that the proliferation led to the passage of ACCP Act. This choice changes this meaning, implying that the proliferation led to the ACCP Act. Notice the difference between the result – passage of act vs. act itself. Per the original sentence, the act might have been present before 1999, but it was passed after the proliferation of the cyber-squatters.
2: Pronoun Reference Error: The antecedent for pronoun “it” is ambiguous. From the sentence structure, because “it” is the subject of an independent clause, its antecedent is the subject of the preceding clause “proliferation”. But this does not make sense since logically “it” refers to the ACCP Act.

Choice E: Incorrect: Similar errors as in Choice D.

I'm attempting to solve the question from a meaning-based approach.

In the original question stem, the usage of a '-ing' modifier ("allowing") must modify the right noun +verb. The noun and verb concerned here are "Proliferation...led".

For an '-ing' modifier to work, it must modify the right noun and verb with a resultant logical meaning. The 'proliferation' noun itself cannot allow the affected companies to pursue damages against the domain name perpetrators. Therefore, A is out.

Since we also know that a noun + verb cannot result in a 'thing' e.g. a legislative Act, in a purely literal grammatical sense, then only B & C would work (eliminate D & E immediately).

Only C moves the subject (the Act) right next to the "..comma + which", allowing the 'which' to modify the immediate preceding noun before the comma (rather than the year 1999, which doesn't make sense because it is not the 'year' that allows companies to pursue legal compensation).

Remember that 'which' modifies a noun, unless a 'prepositional phrase' cannot (without changing its original intended meaning) be placed elsewhere but between a noun and the comma. E.g. The Sarbanes Oxley Act was passed to enforce stricter accounting standards 'of financial reporting', which allowed authorities to clamp down on shadowy corporate practices.

In this example, it is the 'standards' which allowed authorities to clamp down on the corporate practices, and not 'reporting' itself. However, shifting 'of financial reporting' would dilute the intended meaning of the sentence.

___

Hello Sir daagh,

Amazing explanation!
I have one query though, because of which I ended up selecting A.

The original sentence clearly states - with the sole intent of selling them later. However, in rest of the choices, selling is not accompanied by a Noun. For instance, in option C - which allows companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling WHAT ?

That is why, I ended up sticking with the original sentence.
Please help!