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

It is currently 04 May 2016, 20:07
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

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
WE: Information Technology (Retail Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jul 2012, 23:48
PTK wrote:
ajit 257m,

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.



Just a question here: is the correct idiom "intend to" or "intent to"?
I think it is intend to and intention of/to..

EG: I intend to convey this message.
I went there with sole intent of selling my idea!

(Please correct me if I am wrong).. Thanks!
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1167
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 392

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2012, 01:59
gmat apply some grammar rules which is not declared in the og books but required test takers and testprep companies to find out. This game is not interresting.

the following show the point.

In B

Protection Act in 1999, which allows

is incorrect not because "which" is far from "act" but because "in 1999" is not modifier of "act". This problem is explain wonderfully in the articale " slight far noun" in this forum. read the article.


Protection Act under the constitution, which

is correct because "under the constitution" is mofifier of "act" . This is acceptable.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 368
Schools: IE'14, ISB'14, Kellogg'15
WE 1: 7 Yrs in Automobile (Commercial Vehicle industry)
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 50

Reviews Badge
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2012, 10:54
daagh 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-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.

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.


However as per exception rule of which modifier, which can refer to the noun ACC P Act, coz it is nonsensical for 'which' to refer year 1999 in this context. Is there any other error in option B?
_________________

Regards
SD
-----------------------------
Press Kudos if you like my post.
Debrief 610-540-580-710(Long Journey): from-600-540-580-710-finally-achieved-in-4th-attempt-142456.html

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 563
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 75

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2012, 12:42
I am convinced with the question,answer and explanation but only one thing is irking me is that "how the proliferation can lead the passage of a law?"
experts please eradicate the darkness !
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 7409
Followers: 699

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2013, 05:02
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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Apr 2014
Posts: 53
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 20

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jul 2014, 09:49
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
(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 of selling - hanging sentence

_________________

Kudos my back and I Kudos your back

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 605
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 200

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jan 2016, 15:27
ugimba wrote:
56. 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.

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

please explain ..


Hi dear experts,

I could eliminate answer choices B,D and E, but was stuck between A and C. When we take out the modifier of cybersquatters, our sentence takes the following structure:

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters led to...

The Subject is here PROLIFERATION, after it we have and ING-Modifier allowing, which actually must make sense with the subject [PROLIFERATION] of the preceding clause, but it doesn't do so. It would make only sense if "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" were the subject of the preceding clause. Would it be correct to eliminate this answer choice based on this issue ?

Additionally, I preffered passage over passing.
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 21
Followers: 0

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

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2016, 01:51
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 [u]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

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. .==> Lead to is followed by a noun

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 ==> Which should modify the anti-...

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 I checked the word "intent" in the Macmillan advanced learner dictionary page 748, and have found no clues as to the phrase "intent of", "intent" goes with to

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. "and it" causes ambiguity, we don't know it refers to the anti or the proliferation

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 the same as d

So until i got a convincing explanation, i assume that all the answers given above are wrong
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Sep 2015
Posts: 138
Schools: Ross PT '20, ISB '17
GMAT 1: 200 Q0 V0
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 67

Reviews Badge CAT Tests
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2016, 12:33
ugimba wrote:
56. 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.

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

please explain ..


Intent of selling is correct. Narrow down to A/C/E

Passage>Passing
E omits this important word. Something led to an act - does not mean the same as something led to the passage/passing of an act.

Answer: C.

I wish I would have thought of this clearly during the same 3-4 mins I took to answer the question wrong (Marked E at first)
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who   [#permalink] 20 Jan 2016, 12:33

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
59 The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who bigoyal 37 14 Jul 2009, 10:23
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who tarek99 10 10 Jul 2008, 09:37
17 Experts publish their posts in the topic The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who ssandeepan 14 30 Jun 2008, 06:03
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who lexis 0 22 May 2008, 01:15
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who tarek99 3 12 Dec 2007, 05:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| 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®.