Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 May 2017, 02:32

### 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

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

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 463
Location: India
GPA: 2.5
WE: Operations (Hospitality and Tourism)
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 259 [0], given: 59

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

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2013, 00:41
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

93% (02:25) correct 7% (00:00) wrong based on 99 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later. A. ..... B. The passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to$ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with sole intent that they will sell
C. The passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling D. The Anit- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to$ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell
E. The Anit- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling OA to be revealed later Will appreciate discussion of each answer choice _________________ "When the going gets tough, the tough gets going!" Bring ON SOME KUDOS MATES+++ ----------------------------- Quant Notes consolidated: http://gmatclub.com/forum/consolodited-quant-guides-of-forum-most-helpful-in-preps-151067.html#p1217652 My GMAT journey begins: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-gmat-journey-begins-122251.html All about Richard Ivey: http://gmatclub.com/forum/all-about-richard-ivey-148594.html#p1190518 If you have any questions you can ask an expert New! Senior Manager Joined: 07 Sep 2010 Posts: 329 Followers: 9 Kudos [?]: 768 [0], given: 136 Re: The proliferation .... [#permalink] ### Show Tags 28 Mar 2013, 05:36 sdas wrote: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to$ 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 seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling B. The passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to$ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with sole intent that they will sell
C. The passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling D. The Anit- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to$ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell
E. The Anit- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling OA to be revealed later Will appreciate discussion of each answer choice Meaning The Sentence talks about the Law i.e anti cyber law. i.e Anti cyber allows companies to file damages.. Lets analyze the sentence The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to$ 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 _________________ +1 Kudos me, Help me unlocking GMAT Club Tests Manager Joined: 27 Feb 2012 Posts: 136 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 22 Re: The proliferation .... [#permalink] ### Show Tags 16 Apr 2013, 13:57 Quote: Mate your explanation is very good an comprehensive…..your knowledge is really good too however your answer is wrong. OA is C my friend Mate your answer is correct but option C is incorrectly copied. You repeated the year 1999 twice in option C. So it was out of the race. Copying correct question for you. 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 $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling _________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you. Manager Joined: 15 Mar 2012 Posts: 57 Location: United States Concentration: Marketing, Strategy Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 19 Re: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] ### Show Tags 16 Apr 2013, 15:09 For me its C. I think the two "in 1999" its just a typo. _________________ MV "Better to fight for something than live for nothing.” ― George S. Patton Jr Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 11 Dec 2012 Posts: 313 Followers: 114 Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 66 Re: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] ### Show Tags 17 Apr 2013, 08:18 targetbschool wrote: whats wrong with A Hi targetbschool, the very first word of the underlined portion is the problem. Ignoring the unnecessary modifiers, we have: The proliferation(...) led to passing the Act. Who's doing the passing? Much better as a noun "The proliferation led to the passage..." If such a choice is available. Thanks! -Ron _________________ Verbal Forum Moderator Joined: 16 Jun 2012 Posts: 1132 Location: United States Followers: 278 Kudos [?]: 3110 [0], given: 123 Re: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] ### Show Tags 17 Apr 2013, 15:16 sdas wrote: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to$ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

A. .....
B. The passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with sole intent that they will sell C. The passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to$ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
D. The Anit- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell E. The Anit- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to seek up to$ 100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

OA to be revealed later

Will appreciate discussion of each answer choice

@sdas
Please revise the answer C. the two "in 1999" is a mistake.
Here the link of the question from Manhattan GMAT
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the ... -t392.html
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Re: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who   [#permalink] 17 Apr 2013, 15:16
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the 0 17 Dec 2015, 19:33
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 0 17 Oct 2014, 20:10
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 0 20 Jan 2016, 12:33
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 0 21 Dec 2016, 10:24
86 The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 46 10 May 2017, 06:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who

 post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.