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

 It is currently 09 Feb 2016, 15:34

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who

Author Message
TAGS:
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 409

Kudos [?]: 1019 [1] , given: 11

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  30 Jul 2010, 11:09
1
KUDOS
And it just occurred to me, you could also say "My intention is to leave at the first opportunity." That's close as well, but we need that "is" in there.

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 442
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 112

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  30 Jul 2010, 20:49
i was puzzled by the following words "passage in 1999" .....Passage noun form ....
but thats ok....
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 409

Kudos [?]: 1019 [1] , given: 11

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  31 Jul 2010, 10:30
1
KUDOS
Hey Gaura,

That's quite normal, because this is a bit weird. However, we're allowed to modify ACTION nouns in this way. There are certain nouns that imply actions: explosion, revolution, passage, etc. I can say "The 1995 explosion" or "The explosion in 1995". I can't do this for regular nouns: chair, bacon, monkeys. I can't say "The monkeys of 1995", or "The chair of 1995" (except in rare cases, if there's an actual category like "Wines of 1995").

Hope that clears it up!

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1627
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 653 [0], given: 2

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  31 Jul 2010, 10:45
Actually, those action nouns are preferable rather than noun-gerunds.
In this case, "the passage" sounds better than "the passing".

Please tommy correct me if im wrong
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2010
Posts: 23
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  29 Jun 2011, 05:07
I agree with "C" simply because I work in the government in Washington DC and read/hear "led to the passage of so and so act" many times. However, I would have to disagree that you can not lead to the passing of something. Can't a heart attack lead to the passing of a loved one? With "passing" meaning the "passing away" of someone?
Intern
Joined: 02 Nov 2010
Posts: 41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 23

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  29 Jun 2011, 07:47
C is correct. D and E are wrong because the cybersquatting let to the Passage of the act. Not just to the act.
Director
Status: No dream is too large, no dreamer is too small
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 649
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 530 [0], given: 39

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  29 Jun 2011, 08:57
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 90
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 2

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  29 Jun 2011, 09:28
C..awesome explanation Tommy
_________________

Fight till you succeed like a gladiator..or doom your life which can be invincible

Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 258
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 4

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  30 Jun 2011, 07:50
Good question this!

C!

The "internet stuff" lead to the "passage of the act" ....not to "the act"...

I am not so sure whether the idiom "intent to" is incorrect. We say -- "Intent to commit battery" or "assault with intent to kill"....

So I don't think "intent to sell" as such is incorrect in Choice D.

Here is an example of "intent to sell" used in a sentence fragment (taken from the US Law code)

"knowingly sells or possesses with intent to sell an obscene visual depiction shall be punished by a fine in accordance with the provisions of this title or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both".

In my opinion Choice D is incorrect because it's illogical and not because it incorrectly uses "intent to sell".
Intern
Joined: 28 Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

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

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  30 Jun 2011, 22:51
complete toss for me. I guessed E. Still not sure why E is wrong...can someone tell
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 258
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 4

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  01 Jul 2011, 05:03
getmydream wrote:
complete toss for me. I guessed E. Still not sure why E is wrong...can someone tell

E has a couple of issues. But one that is easy to find is the usage of this phrase "those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell" ---You have two pronouns those and they ---> not a very concise construction...That phrase can be re-stated as: "those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling...." ----> The use of the phrase "that they will" is awkward in this context.

Another issue is a logical one (if you do not want to get caught up in all the grammar rules and stuff). Try and think about the meaning of the sentence --> what led to the "passage of the act" ---> The cybersquatting let to the "Passage of the act" and not just to "the act itself". So Choice C is more logical.

Think about this -- a simplified sentence -- 1) Martin Luther King's march from Selma to Montgomery led to the Voting Rights Act; or 2) Martin Luther King's march from Selma to Montgomery led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act;

Given a choice --> Sentence 2 conveys the intended meaning much better than does sentence 1.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 271
GMAT 1: 750 Q V
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 6

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]  03 Jul 2012, 04:18
+1 C.

Basically, the relative pronoun "which" should modify the Act, not "1999" or anything else.
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2012
Posts: 66
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]  12 Sep 2012, 02:47
I chose D as I felt it was the best option though the choices. I trusted my ear more on this one. Going through the explanations I realize that "intent to" is wrong. "intend to" is the best way to use the idiom.

C looks the correct one but I missed it.
_________________

My attempt to capture my B-School Journey in a Blog : tranquilnomadgmat.blogspot.com

There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.

Director
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 633
Schools: HBS '16 (II)
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 2: 750 Q51 V41
GMAT 3: 790 Q51 V49
GPA: 3.3
Followers: 36

Kudos [?]: 237 [0], given: 287

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]  03 Jul 2013, 04:38
TommyWallach wrote:
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

I am scoring Q51, can I score V47, Sentence correction is where I am struggling.
_________________

Like my post Send me a Kudos It is a Good manner.
My Debrief: how-to-score-750-and-750-i-moved-from-710-to-189016.html

Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 81
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 24

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]  19 Jun 2014, 06:35
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.

bigoyal wrote:
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-Cybersquattina 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 (modifies 1999) companies to seek up to$100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which (modifies 1999) allows companies to seek up to $100,000 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 (modifies the act) allows companies to seek up to$100,000 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 (proliferation) allows companies to seek up to $100,000 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 allowing companies to seek up to$100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell

Last edited by mmagyar on 20 Jun 2014, 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Posts: 114
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 10

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]  20 Jun 2014, 06:00
Hi! I am assuming when you say "preposition", you mean "pronoun".

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 Manager Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Posts: 81 Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 24 Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] 20 Jun 2014, 06:40 ayushman wrote: Hi! I am assuming when you say "preposition", you mean "pronoun". Thanks! I typed that up too fast and missed that! ayushman wrote: Also, "in 1999" is not an "adjective", but "adverb" (since it answers "when"). 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. ayushman wrote: 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

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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 6551
Followers: 638

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]  14 Jul 2015, 09:51
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who   [#permalink] 14 Jul 2015, 09:51

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 38 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
12 The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 28 23 Aug 2009, 15:01
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 10 31 Aug 2008, 11:41
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 10 10 Jul 2008, 08:37
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 0 22 May 2008, 00:15
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 3 12 Dec 2007, 04:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by