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

It is currently 30 Aug 2014, 06:50

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

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 805
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Followers: 62

Kudos [?]: 391 [1] , given: 56

GMAT Tests User
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 14 Jul 2009, 09:23
1
This post received
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (02:10) correct 64% (01:08) wrong based on 704 sessions
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 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 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 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 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

ISB 2011-12 thread | Ask ISB Alumni @ ThinkISB
All information related to Indian candidates and B-schools | Indian B-schools accepting GMAT scores
Self evaluation for Why MBA?

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 99

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 14 Jul 2009, 09:41
between A, D and E ... chose A.

'Intent of selling' is better.
Current Student
User avatar
Status: What's your raashee?
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1847
Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: UNC (Kenan-Flagler) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 52

GMAT Tests User Reviews Badge
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 14 Jul 2009, 10:02
i think C.

for A to work shouldnt you need "let to passing OF the........"?
_________________

If you like my answers please +1 kudos!

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 805
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Followers: 62

Kudos [?]: 391 [0], given: 56

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 16 Jul 2009, 22:15
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 805
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Followers: 62

Kudos [?]: 391 [0], given: 56

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2009, 09:33
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 306
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 15

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2009, 09:44
are u waiting for a vote for D??? ;)
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 306
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 97 [1] , given: 15

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2009, 09:49
1
This post received
KUDOS
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 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 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 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 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


intent of + noun
intent to + verb
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 230
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2009, 10:43
Between A and C, I would go with C.

Led to the passage of seems much better than passing, and which correctly refers to the act.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 852
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 106

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2009, 11:58
Please post the OA and ,if possible, OE.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 300
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 9

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2009, 15:01
C imo...A is not right since "lead to passing the ...." is not the correct usage..
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 70
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 10

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2009, 21:06
[quote="bigoyal"]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 companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling-led to the passing is wrong....
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-Led to the passage is wrong
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-Same as B....
D. the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell-Only app led to x...and it allows to...,intent to....
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-intent that they will wrong /quote]
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 805
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Followers: 62

Kudos [?]: 391 [0], given: 56

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2009, 21:17
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 164
Location: India
Schools: ISB
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 14

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 25 Jun 2010, 05:51
My first answer was A :( . But now realized passing is wrong. I will go with C as well
_________________

_________________
If you like my post, consider giving me a kudos. THANKS!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Posts: 46
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 25 Jun 2010, 09:52
Why is A wrong? It sounds better than C for sure - 1999 before the "passage of the act" sounds l'll weird though not incorrect. GMAT experts - need your help here!
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 588
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 250 [0], given: 20

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 25 Jun 2010, 13:36
A is wrong: "led to the passing of..." isn't better than "led to the passage of the..."
"...act in 1999, allowing..." (suggests that companies were allowed to seek damages as a consequence of the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Not correct)

B. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows... (suggests that which modifies the preceding clause (is it?). Further "sole intent that will sell" should be "sole intent of selling")

C. the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows... with the sole intent of selling them later. The best of all.

D. the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows...with the sole intent to sell... (unnecessarily wordy and choppy)

E. wordy and changes intended meaning of the original sentence.

Please I stand to be corrected. Thanks.
_________________

KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 25 Jun 2010, 19:59
IMO : C
A led to + passing is wrong
B, E ambiguous “they”
D ambiguous “it”

rashminet84 wrote:
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 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 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 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 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


intent of + noun
intent to + verb

_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

19 KUDOS received
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 328

Kudos [?]: 702 [19] , given: 11

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 27 Jul 2010, 13:37
19
This post received
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hey All,

I got asked to take this one on by PM. Here we go!

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
PROBLEM: You can't "lead to passing". You have to lead to a thing, like "the passage" (or even "the passing" could've worked). "Allowing" is not the correct modifier type here (we're modifying a noun, not a whole clause, so the relative pronoun "which" is better).

(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
PROBLEM: The relative clause "which allows" seems to be modifying "1999", where we want the CPA itself. Also, we want "the sole intent OF selling", the correct idiom.

(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
ANSWER: All good.

(D) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell
PROBLEM: We don't put a comma before the word "and" in a list of only two things. Also, the idiom with "sell" at the end is wrong. The "it", however, is not ambiguous (for those who are wondering), because it's the only singular noun before the pronoun.

(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
PROBLEM: "Passed" and "allowing" are both participles, which means they're technically parallel, but it's still hideous. Also, the idiom at the end is wrong yet again.

Hope that helps!

-t
_________________


Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 27 Jul 2010, 20:52
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
_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

4 KUDOS received
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 328

Kudos [?]: 702 [4] , given: 11

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 29 Jul 2010, 20:30
4
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________


Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 00:40
Bull's eye :2gunfire: Tommy its awesome to have you here !

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

_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999   [#permalink] 30 Jul 2010, 00:40
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 Experts publish their posts in the topic The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who ugimba 25 23 Aug 2009, 15:01
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who MamtaKrishnia 4 19 Jul 2008, 18:22
9 Experts publish their posts in the topic The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who ssandeepan 12 30 Jun 2008, 05:03
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who lexis 0 22 May 2008, 00:15
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who tarek99 3 12 Dec 2007, 04:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 37 posts ] 



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®.