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

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 07:04

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
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 116 [1] , given: 99

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 23 Aug 2009, 15:01
1
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (02:15) correct 56% (01:21) wrong based on 308 sessions
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 ..
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by PiyushK on 06 Jul 2014, 11:12, edited 1 time in total.
Added OA.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 66
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 2

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 23 Aug 2009, 15:12
I think the answer is D.
"passage"/" passing" doesnt sound right./not the correct usage.
but in E, The author used the word "selling" which I dont think is the right usage
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 341
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [1] , given: 14

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 23 Aug 2009, 16:49
1
This post received
KUDOS
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
_________________

Always tag your question

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Followers: 2

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

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 23 Aug 2009, 20:01
IMO D

I feel like in C "the passage in 1999 of..." is awkward
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 116 [0], given: 99

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 24 Aug 2009, 06:48
ichha148 wrote:
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



please explain me little bit more on your strategy to eliminate option A.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 341
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 14

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 24 Aug 2009, 12:42
ugimba wrote:
ichha148 wrote:
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



please explain me little bit more on your strategy to eliminate option A.


Who is passing the act ? this is not clear , So A is out
_________________

Always tag your question

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2009
Posts: 42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 24 Aug 2009, 14:09
ichha148 wrote:
ugimba wrote:
ichha148 wrote:
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



please explain me little bit more on your strategy to eliminate option A.


Who is passing the act ? this is not clear , So A is out


Answer choice D is good. seek up and seed up to against those. seek up to--
and also the proliferation has led to the ACT and not to the passing or the passage.."them, they" in answer choices are un-clear. so D intent to sell is correct idiom
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 116 [0], given: 99

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 24 Aug 2009, 14:14
The OA is given as C ...

is it debatable? or perfect?
7 KUDOS received
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: doing good things...
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1245
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: Q V
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.77
WE: Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 157

Kudos [?]: 527 [7] , given: 531

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 15 Oct 2010, 02:57
7
This post received
KUDOS
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.

Some situation led to ____ here must be a NOUN, which logically explains to what a certain situation has led.

A passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those (those WHAT? damages?) 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 seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell - 1999 cant itself allow.

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 - does it referes to year or act? a situation led to an act?!! - not true

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 - does it referes to year or act? a situation led to an act?!! - not true


also correct idiom is intent to do smth or intention of doing smth
_________________

Follow me, if you find my explanations useful.

Audaces fortuna juvat!

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 193
Location: Finland
Schools: Admitted: IESE($$),HEC, RSM,Esade
WE 1: 3.5 years international
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 18

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 15 Oct 2010, 10:43
Good question. Stumped between C and D. C sounds awkward and with D tere is a case of pronoun ambiguity.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Posts: 266
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 11

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2011, 04:53
Pkit 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 seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

Some situation led to ____ here must be a NOUN, which logically explains to what a certain situation has led.

A passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those (those WHAT? damages?) 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 seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell - 1999 cant itself allow.

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 - does it referes to year or act? a situation led to an act?!! - not true

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 - does it referes to year or act? a situation led to an act?!! - not true


also correct idiom is intent to do smth or intention of doing smth


Pkit
so c should be incorrect (going by the idiom rule) and also i believe we don't end sc's with 'ing'.. I know gmat cant be wrong but i can never get such question right. Please can you advise on how to tackle such a scenario. I chose the D for this very reason.
_________________

Verbal:new-to-the-verbal-forum-please-read-this-first-77546.html
Math: new-to-the-math-forum-please-read-this-first-77764.html
Gmat: everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajit

Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: doing good things...
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1245
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: Q V
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.77
WE: Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 157

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 531

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2011, 05:00
ajit257 wrote:
Pkit
so c should be incorrect (going by the idiom rule) and also i believe we don't end sc's with 'ing'.. I know gmat cant be wrong but i can never get such question right. Please can you advise on how to tackle such a scenario. I chose the D for this very reason.


look above for the post of ugimba, which states that the OA in GMATprep is C.

Yes GMAT can't be wrong, i did not state that it is wrong.
For why reason you choosed D I did not understand too. Why you believe a SC could not end with "-ing"?

Example: I am swimming. I am running.
_________________

Follow me, if you find my explanations useful.

Audaces fortuna juvat!

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: GMAT Learner
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 651
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 254 [0], given: 32

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2011, 13:14
ugimba wrote:
The OA is given as C ...

is it debatable? or perfect?


Right. Because in D the pronoun it does not have proper reference.
_________________

I am student of everyone-baten
Collections:-
PSof OG solved by GC members: http://gmatclub.com/forum/collection-ps-with-solution-from-gmatclub-110005.html
DS of OG solved by GC members: http://gmatclub.com/forum/collection-ds-with-solution-from-gmatclub-110004.html
100 GMAT PREP Quantitative collection http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-problem-collections-114358.html
Collections of work/rate problems with solutions http://gmatclub.com/forum/collections-of-work-rate-problem-with-solutions-118919.html
Mixture problems in a file with best solutions: http://gmatclub.com/forum/mixture-problems-with-best-and-easy-solutions-all-together-124644.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Posts: 266
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 11

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2011, 15:09
Pkit wrote:
ajit257 wrote:
Pkit
so c should be incorrect (going by the idiom rule) and also i believe we don't end sc's with 'ing'.. I know gmat cant be wrong but i can never get such question right. Please can you advise on how to tackle such a scenario. I chose the D for this very reason.


look above for the post of ugimba, which states that the OA in GMATprep is C.

Yes GMAT can't be wrong, i did not state that it is wrong.
For why reason you choosed D I did not understand too. Why you believe a SC could not end with "-ing"?

Example: I am swimming. I am running.


Thanks for your help Pkit. I chose D for the very reason ..wrong idiom : intent of ...it should be intent to and intention of. I think i misunderstood the part on ending a sc with "ing"
_________________

Verbal:new-to-the-verbal-forum-please-read-this-first-77546.html
Math: new-to-the-math-forum-please-read-this-first-77764.html
Gmat: everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajit

Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: doing good things...
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1245
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: Q V
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.77
WE: Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 157

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 531

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2011, 21:57
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.
_________________

Follow me, if you find my explanations useful.

Audaces fortuna juvat!

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Posts: 266
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 11

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 15 Feb 2011, 03:45
awesome ...i did the same except it was websters :).

Examples of INTENT

She thinks I'm trying to make things difficult for her, but that's not my intent.
What was the the writer's intent?
The intent of the law is to protect consumers.
He was charged with assault with intent to kill.

intent to and intent of ...both are correct. Thanks for the right direction, Pkit.
_________________

Verbal:new-to-the-verbal-forum-please-read-this-first-77546.html
Math: new-to-the-math-forum-please-read-this-first-77764.html
Gmat: everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajit

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 316
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 33

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 15 Feb 2011, 11:23
Baten80 wrote:
ugimba wrote:
The OA is given as C ...

is it debatable? or perfect?


Right. Because in D the pronoun it does not have proper reference.



I chose C too!

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.

passing the anti- Not clear as to who passed this act?


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

"with the sole intent that they will sell" Doesnt sound right!

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

The passage of sounds fine, the passage in 1999 of x also sounds fine.

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 allows companies to " Did not agree with this

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

Led to refers to the passing and not the act itself. By POE i chose C.
please explain ..
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 2266
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 267

Kudos [?]: 1702 [1] , given: 249

Premium Member
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 09 Mar 2011, 21:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Posts: 224
Schools: Mccombs business school, Mays business school, Rotman Business School,
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 18

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2012, 17:23
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 ..



i am going with the option C here. logically "It" needs to modify ACCPA but grammatically it doesnt modify ACCPA in D. A is out because "allowing" needs to modify the subject of the previous clause but its not clear which it modifies
_________________

some people are successful, because they have been fortunate enough and some people earn success, because they have been determined.....

please press kudos if you like my post.... i am begging for kudos...lol

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: Project Management Professional (PMP)
Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Posts: 213
Location: New Delhi, India
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 12

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] New post 12 Jun 2012, 03:25
IMO C as this is the one looking logical and where which is used properly.
_________________

Best
Vaibhav

If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, Thanks

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who   [#permalink] 12 Jun 2012, 03:25
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who kt00381n 5 30 Aug 2009, 14:41
44 The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who bigoyal 36 14 Jul 2009, 09:23
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who MamtaKrishnia 4 19 Jul 2008, 18:22
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who tarek99 10 10 Jul 2008, 08:37
9 Experts publish their posts in the topic The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who ssandeepan 12 30 Jun 2008, 05:03
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  [ 26 posts ] 



cron

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®.