It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 23:42

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

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 943

Kudos [?]: 1087 [0], given: 548

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Dec 2014, 06:28
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.
Too much of action with a gerund -> A bug red Flag in GMAT.
passing of the act didn't allow companies to do X. In fact, the act allowed companies to do X.


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 is fine. I don't have any issue.
I have a issue with ending phrase. intent they will sell? that modifies intent.


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 -> Looks ok

Proliferation cannot be led to ACT.
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

For option D) and E)
"X has led to Y, which is A and which allows C" -> Proper sentence construction.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
My Debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267.html#p1449379
My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/kinjal-das/

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful

Kudos [?]: 1087 [0], given: 548

Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3418

Kudos [?]: 9470 [0], given: 1197

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

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2015, 04:28
30 seconds approach to the question

the proliferation led what ?? to the passage. Then what : if you notice this part of the question which allows companies to seek up to $100,000, which can not modify 1999 but the Act.

So \(C\) is the best answer right away

Hope this helps

PS : the question was already discussed here
the-proliferation-of-so-called-cybersquatters-people-who-80877.html
Please use the search button before to post a new one question and follow the rules for posting
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Kudos [?]: 9470 [0], given: 1197

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Nov 2014
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 41

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

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2015, 04:49
Thanks Carcass for the explanation.
What if the option A was : "passing OF 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"?
Will this be the correct answer as well?

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 41

Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3418

Kudos [?]: 9470 [0], given: 1197

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

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2015, 07:23
JasonClark wrote:
Thanks Carcass for the explanation.
What if the option A was : "passing OF 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"?
Will this be the correct answer as well?


Hi,

First of all I do not think is possible 1999 allowing something... OF or not

Secondly and most important on the gmat one and only one is correct. Always.

Regards
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Kudos [?]: 9470 [0], given: 1197

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 341

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 403

GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Reviews Badge
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2015, 19:33
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
JasonClark 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 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 that they will sell


(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
WRONG- WHat does allowing refer to? It nonsensically modifies the previous clause .Used as such it would tag with the subject of the clause-The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters- which does not makes any sense.

(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

WRONG-sole intent of should be used and antecedent of they is not clear.

(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 - led to what? led to must be followed by an object...led to something. ..led to the passage ( in 1999) ..so we got the object of the action led...
correctly uses sole intent of

(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
WRONG- What s the antecedent of it? The way the sentence is written in D, IT refers to 'The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters'.

(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

WRONG- sole intent that; antecedent of they is not clear
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 403

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 589

Kudos [?]: 492 [1], given: 200

Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jan 2016, 15:27
1
This post received
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 492 [1], given: 200

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 1 [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

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 25

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 25 Sep 2015
Posts: 145

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 74

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V37
GPA: 3.26
Reviews Badge
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)

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 74

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1387

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 916

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

Show Tags

New post 21 Dec 2016, 10:24
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 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 that they will sell


regarding A.
comma+doing grammatically show an action which is done by subject of preceding clause and happen simultaneously with and do not separate from preceding verb and which have various meaning relations with main verb such as: effect, cause, context,detail and mothod of main verb.

so, grammatically "allowing is " done by "proliferation of cyberquatter". this grammatical relation is not logic. and we have "which allow..." in other choices to confirm this illogic relation. realization of this illogic relation, between main clause and comma+doing is tough job.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 916

Senior SC Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1254

Kudos [?]: 1358 [0], given: 440

Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2017, 20:13
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 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

GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja This question is extremely challenging. Can we use "passing" in (A)? Does the conjunction "and" in (D) and (E) use correctly? Which one is the correct usage of verb/meaning "led to passing/the passage/Act"? Which one is correct "intent to/intent of/intent that"?



[Reveal] Spoiler:
Attachment:
intent.jpg
intent.jpg [ 32.88 KiB | Viewed 345 times ]

_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Kudos [?]: 1358 [0], given: 440

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1387

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 916

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

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2017, 03:59
regarding choice A.

led to passing.

is this correct?

normally, gerund doing can work as a noun and we tend to think that we noun and gerund can be interchangeble in most combinations. but I think that in some patterns, only noun, not gerund, is used and the combination "lead to ..." is one of the pattern in which only noun is used.

so, idiomatically "lead to something" is correct and "lead to doing " is incorrect. this point is purely idiomatica, I think

am I correct?
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 916

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3219

Kudos [?]: 3628 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2017, 06:07
victory47 wrote:
regarding choice A.

led to passing.

is this correct?

normally, gerund doing can work as a noun and we tend to think that we noun and gerund can be interchangeble in most combinations. but I think that in some patterns, only noun, not gerund, is used and the combination "lead to ..." is one of the pattern in which only noun is used.

so, idiomatically "lead to something" is correct and "lead to doing " is incorrect. this point is purely idiomatica, I think

am I correct?


You are correct - in most cases a noun, when available, is preferred to a gerund. Therefore "lead to passage" is better than "lead to passing".

Kudos [?]: 3628 [0], given: 22

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 06 May 2015
Posts: 68

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

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

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2017, 06:19
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 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 seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

Led to the passing sounds ungrammatical


(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

The sole intent that they will sell - ambiguity

(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
It seems two things by using AND


(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


SAME AS D


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 690

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 855

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2017, 14:06
This sentence has idiomatic error in the expression – led to passing. The correct expression is “led to the passage of xyz”.
The sentence uses the - X led to passing Y. This expression is not idiomatically correct. It should be – X led to the passage of Y. Consider a similar example:

The flood led to damaging the houses. – Incorrect
The flood led to the damage of the houses. – Correct

Choice A: Incorrect: Idiom Error as explained above

Choice B: Incorrect: Modifier Error: “which” modifier appears to modify “1999”, whereas it should modify “the Protection Act”. Note here that we cannot consider “Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACCP Act) in 1999” as a noun phrase and hence we cannot say that “which” modifier modifies “ACCP Act”. This is because “in 1999” is not associated with ACCP Act. “In 1999” describes the timing of “passage of act”. Thus, from the structure of this sentence, “which” modifier modifies the closest noun “1999” and hence is incorrect.

Choice C: Correct

Choice D: Incorrect
1: Meaning Error: The intended meaning of the sentence is that the proliferation led to the passage of ACCP Act. This choice changes this meaning, implying that the proliferation led to the ACCP Act. Notice the difference between the result – passage of act vs. act itself. Per the original sentence, the act might have been present before 1999, but it was passed after the proliferation of the cyber-squatters.
2: Pronoun Reference Error: The antecedent for pronoun “it” is ambiguous. From the sentence structure, because “it” is the subject of an independent clause, its antecedent is the subject of the preceding clause “proliferation”. But this does not make sense since logically “it” refers to the ACCP Act.

Choice E: Incorrect: Similar errors as in Choice D.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 855

Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who   [#permalink] 25 Aug 2017, 14:06

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 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®.