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

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 13:19

### 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
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1520
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 816 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2007, 05:35
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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 $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

Thanks
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 156
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2007, 06:17
I narrowed it down to B and C. I chose C because "the Act, which allows ..." sounds better than "in 1999, which allows..."
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1520
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 816 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2007, 06:40
the OA is C. but can someone explain to me what's wrong with D?
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 757
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 0

Re: SC: Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2007, 09:11
tarek99 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. 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

Thanks

Picked C.

'passing' is incorrect. The sentence requires 'passage'. Eliminate A.

'which' incorrectly refers to '1999' in B. Eliminate.

'and' is not required in D. The sentence is not trying to convey two messages. D is conveying two messages 1) the act was passed and 2) the act allows... The original sentence want to say that an act, which allows ..., was passed. Stay as close to the original meaning as possible.

E has the same problem as D.
Re: SC: Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act   [#permalink] 12 Dec 2007, 09:11
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 5 31 Aug 2009, 10:03
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 10 02 Sep 2008, 05:30
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 10 21 Jul 2008, 10:27
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who 0 22 May 2008, 01:15
The proliferation of so called cybersquatters, people who 5 23 Jul 2007, 12:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by