It is currently 22 Feb 2018, 14:58

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 125
Re: GMAT Prep Question [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Mar 2011, 13:14
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Hi Mickey,

Good question--if you don't recognize that "passing" has an existing noun counterpart, a helpful clue here might be that all the other answer choices use the definite article "the"-- the original does not.

The structure is "the proliferation...led to...the passage"

Additionally, the use of the -ing form of "allowing" makes the phrase that follows technically modify the verb "led" rather than the act itself...you miiiight be able to make an argument for that (since that action --the leading to the act-- did ultimately, well, lead to the act, which then allowed the companies to seek damages), but that's a stretch. A more direct expression of the meaning is that the ACT was what really allowed companies to seek damages.

Does that help?
_________________


JP Park | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Los Angeles

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 72
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2011, 08:20
ssandeepan 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.

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

The correct answer is C ; I think it is because of the correct verb "lead to the passage of" and also it removes the misplaced modifiers in B where it is not clear if the act or 1999 allows companied to seed. Can somebody confirm my understanding is correct ?


During GMAT prep test , I chose A , again for not good reasons. Despite knowing that after "to" "passing" looks weired. Later when I analysed incorrect response. Important thing that I missed these under the time pressure

a) I will go passing .. allowing incorrect
b) led to passage ... act.. (in 1999 -incorrect), which
c) led to passage .. act , which ... CORRECT
d) awkward .. "it".. confusing
e) awkward .. "it" confusing
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 240
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2011, 07:50
Good question this!

C!

The "internet stuff" lead to the "passage of the act" ....not to "the act"...

I am not so sure whether the idiom "intent to" is incorrect. We say -- "Intent to commit battery" or "assault with intent to kill"....

So I don't think "intent to sell" as such is incorrect in Choice D.

Here is an example of "intent to sell" used in a sentence fragment (taken from the US Law code)

"knowingly sells or possesses with intent to sell an obscene visual depiction shall be punished by a fine in accordance with the provisions of this title or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both".

In my opinion Choice D is incorrect because it's illogical and not because it incorrectly uses "intent to sell".
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 240
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2011, 05:03
getmydream wrote:
complete toss for me. I guessed E. Still not sure why E is wrong...can someone tell


E has a couple of issues. But one that is easy to find is the usage of this phrase "those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell" ---You have two pronouns those and they ---> not a very concise construction...That phrase can be re-stated as: "those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling...." ----> The use of the phrase "that they will" is awkward in this context.

Another issue is a logical one (if you do not want to get caught up in all the grammar rules and stuff). Try and think about the meaning of the sentence --> what led to the "passage of the act" ---> The cybersquatting let to the "Passage of the act" and not just to "the act itself". So Choice C is more logical.

Think about this -- a simplified sentence -- 1) Martin Luther King's march from Selma to Montgomery led to the Voting Rights Act; or 2) Martin Luther King's march from Selma to Montgomery led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act;

Given a choice --> Sentence 2 conveys the intended meaning much better than does sentence 1.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
WE: Information Technology (Retail Banking)
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jul 2012, 22:48
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
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1377
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2012, 00:59
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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 224
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Nov 2012, 02:40
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
A:
The proliferation led to passing the Act, allowing companies to seek damages.
Here, it is not clear who or what is passing the act.
Generally, COMMA + VERBing refers to the subject of the preceding clause. Thus, the implication here is that the PROLIFERATION was allowing companies to seek damages -- not the intended meaning.
Eliminate A.

In B, they lacks a clear antecedent.
Also, which seems to refer to 1999, implying that the year itself allows companies to seek damages. Eliminate B.

D and E:
The proliferation led to the Act.
Not the intended meaning: the proliferation led not to the ACT itself but to the PASSAGE of the Act.
Also, led to the Act and passed in 1999 incorrectly imply that there were two distinct events. Not so. The intended meaning is that the events were concurrent: The proliferation LED to the PASSAGE in 1999 of the Act.
Also, it lacks a clear antecedent.
In E, they lacks a clear antecedent.

Eliminate D and E.

The correct answer is C.
_________________

If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, I kinda need some =)

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 460
Location: India
GPA: 2.5
WE: Operations (Hospitality and Tourism)
The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Mar 2013, 23:41
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 :cool
_________________

"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

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 326
Re: The proliferation .... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Mar 2013, 04:36
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 :cool

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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 136
Re: The proliferation .... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Apr 2013, 12:57
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Posts: 57
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
Re: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Apr 2013, 14:09
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

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 313
Re: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2013, 07:18
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
_________________

Ron Awad
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses and Admissions Consulting Services
Veritas Prep Reviews

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1124
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: The proliferation of so-called Cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2013, 14:16
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 :cool


@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.

3 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1121
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2013, 06:28
3
This post received
KUDOS
fozzzy wrote:
Can someone provide a detailed analysis on this question. Thanks!


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.

"led to passing" is not idiomatic in option A.

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
In B which refers to the year 1999: incorrect
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
C is the correct option.
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

D has a mistake of this kind: "the ACT -modifier- and it allows". If you read the whole sentence, it seems to say that "The proliferation lead to the act and allows": this sentence has not the correct structure.
E is not parallel "Act passed and it allows", moreover the structure of the sentence is not correct (see D).
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1121
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2013, 00:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
fozzzy wrote:
Hey Zarrolou one question regarding option A

Suppose this question was idiomatically correct and had led to the passage is the modifier correct in this option?

allowing companies to seek up to 100000 in damages? Since its presenting the result of the previous clause...


Lets create a new option

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.

F) the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (this is option C), allowing companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later. (this is option A).

No. The sentence would not be correct. A shorter version may calrify

"The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters led to the passage of the Act, allowing companies to seed up (...)"
"allowing companies to seed up" does not present the results of the action, the next clause "allowing companies to seed up" presents something that the act does.

Moreover one of the rules of the ING modifier of this form is that the ING verb must make sense with the subject of the previous clause:
The proliferation (subject) does not make sense with the verb "allowing companies to seed up", the intended subject of the "allow" verb is the Act.
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 38
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2014, 00:59
I have a question: If E is incorrect because "passed" and "allowing" are not parallel, why in other questions using -ed modifier and -ing modifier is considered parallel?????

For example:
Scientists have recently discovered what could be the largest and oldest living organism on Earth, a giant fungus
that is an interwoven filigree of mushrooms and root-like tentacles spawned by a single fertilized spore some
10,000 years ago and extending for more than 30 acres in the soil of a Michigan forest.


or this one:

First discovered more than 30 years ago, Lina's sunbird, a four-and-a-half-inch animal found in the Philippines and
and resembling a hummingbird, has shimmering metallic colors on its head; a brilliant orange patch, bordered with
red tufts, in the center of its breast; and a red eye.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 86
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2014, 06:35
1
This post received
KUDOS
This is an old thread but it was the QOTD today and I disagree with a lot of the explanations here, especially with respect to answer D, so I just wanted to point a few things out:

One big missed issue here is with the modifier dealing with allowing/allows. This modifier must describe the act (and not the passage of the act, though that doesn't happen here) because it is the act that allows companies to seek damages. A and B violate this rule because "in 1999" is in the way. BUT BE CAREFUL about this. We cannot just see another modifier in the way and assume it is wrong. Which of the following is correct?

I want the box of pencils that are red.
I want the box of pencils that is red.

Actually, both are correct, depending on the meaning. Let's look at the grammar. In the first, "that are red" is clearly modifying the "pencils". However, in the second, "that is red" cannot modify "pencils" because of subject/verb agreement, so it must modify "box". But, isn't "of pencils" in the way? No - here there is actually no problem because "of pencils" is describing the box as well. Therefore, "that is red" is describing "the box of pencils" and the modifier "of pencils" is not in the way.

So why is "in 1999" in the way? Because it is an adjective for the noun "passage" (tells us when the passage occurred) - not an adjective to describe the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act itself. Look at it this way: we can refer to "the box of pencils" as one noun, but does it make sense to refer to "the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999" as one noun? No. If it were "of 1999", then it would describe the noun, but it is "in 1999", which tells us when it was passed. (See noun-modifiers-can-modify-slightly-far-away-noun-135868.html, especially the two Mr. Smith examples.)

The modifier order in C sounds a little awkward because we normally would use "passage of ___" and then put the time "in 1999" at the end, but C must be constructed that way so that the modifier can correctly describe the act instead of the year. (This is a great example of why you shouldn't use just your ear.) It might now seem that "in 1999" is between "the passage" and the modifying prepositional phrase "of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", but this is okay because they can both be describing "the passage".

So why not D and E? I don't think it is wrong to say that the proliferation led to the Act itself. This brings up a good point: just because there is a difference on GMAT SC doesn't mean that one way must be correct and another must be wrong (this is a HUGE false assumption by most test takers). I also don't think it is wrong to say "intent to sell". In fact, "intent to sell" is a common legal term. I do, however, think that "intent that they will sell" is wrong, partially because it is not idiomatic and partially because "they" is odd there unless it refers to someone else selling them. It should either be "intent of" or "intent to". This knocks out E. (Also, do not eliminate E just because of bad parallelism - "passed" and "allowing" actually ARE parallel because they are both participle phrases. See scientists-have-recently-discovered-what-could-be-the-9394.html.)

D is more tricky. (By the way TommyWallach, there is no comma problem in D because the comma before the "and" is part of the "which" modifier, so we ignore it when analyzing the grammar of the parallel construction; furthermore, it is permissible to put commas before "and" in a list of two things when they are both independent clauses. See FANBOYS.) Here is the controlling GMAT rule here: If there are two clauses and the subject of the second clause is a pronoun, then that pronoun should match the subject of the first sentence. D violates this because then "it" would have to refer to "the proliferation", and the proliferation is not what "allows companies to seek" damages - it is the act that allows this.

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 (modifies 1999) 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 (modifies 1999) 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 (modifies the act) 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 (proliferation) 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

Last edited by mmagyar on 20 Jun 2014, 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Posts: 102
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jun 2014, 06:00
Hi! I am assuming when you say "preposition", you mean "pronoun".

Also, "in 1999" is not an "adjective", but "adverb" (since it answers "when").

Also I believe that D is wrong because it is not parallel:

..the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages

which was passed in 1999: Dependent clause
it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages: Independent clause

Dependent clause and Independent clause cannot be parallel. It should be:

..the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 86
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jun 2014, 06:40
1
This post received
KUDOS
ayushman wrote:
Hi! I am assuming when you say "preposition", you mean "pronoun".

Thanks! I typed that up too fast and missed that!

ayushman wrote:
Also, "in 1999" is not an "adjective", but "adverb" (since it answers "when").

I thought this at first too, but then C would be wrong. Here is C again:

"The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters ... led to the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act"

We are dealing with a noun and its adjective: "the passage ... of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act". If "in 1999" is an adverb for the verb led, then the adverb "in 1999" would be between the noun "the passage" and its adjective "of the Anti...". You would have [noun A], [adverb], [adjective for noun A]. That is not allowed - an adjective must touch its noun or at least be part of a series of adjectives for its noun. So then the adjective "of the Anti..." would not be allowed to describe "the passage" and would have to describe "1999", which doesn't make any sense.

So how could "in 1999" be an adjective? Just because it mentions time doesn't mean it has to describe a verb. What about "the test on Monday will be hard"? Here, "on Monday" is describing time, but it is telling us about "the test", which is a noun. Therefore, it is about time, but it is an adjective.

C is an awkwardly worded construction and we would normally want to put references to time at the end (it is still correct because the others have worse issues than being a little awkward), but it would be grammatically wrong if "in 1999" is describing the verb "led", so here "in 1999" would have to tell us about "the passage" (specifically, when that noun happened, just like the example I gave about the test on Monday). Again, this seems odd to me, so I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I don't see how C could be grammatically correct otherwise.

ayushman wrote:
Also I believe that D is wrong because it is not parallel:

..the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages

which was passed in 1999: Dependent clause
it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages: Independent clause

Dependent clause and Independent clause cannot be parallel. It should be:

..the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages

That's an interesting thought and you are correct in that we need to parallel "which ..., which ..., and which..." when we are dealing with lists, but be careful of the level. While that would work (though be careful about that second comma), D is also parallel as written because it is a list of independent clauses (SVO and SVO). The "which ..." modifier is a small part of the main independent clause. If we collapse some of the modifiers, the sentence reads:

"The proliferation ... led to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ... and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages ..."

Here, we have two clauses "The proliferation ... led ..." and "it allows ...", so they are parallel. Again, the "which ..." is an adjective inside the first independent clause, so there is no problem because it is not in a list with the last part.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Apr 2014
Posts: 50
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jul 2014, 08:49
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

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who   [#permalink] 06 Jul 2014, 08:49

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 54 posts ] 

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 | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.