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

 It is currently 28 May 2017, 20:02

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 243
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 240 [4] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2008, 06:03
4
KUDOS
15
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (02:28) correct 52% (01:25) wrong based on 1191 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) 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by hazelnut on 08 May 2017, 19:43, edited 5 times in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 943
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 303 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2008, 06:35
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. "Passing" wrong tense. Activity already finished. 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
"they" not clear. Companies or criminals?

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 Seems OK. 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..." is wrong construction. False parallelism.

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 "and it allows..." is wrong construction. False parallelism. VP Joined: 03 Apr 2007 Posts: 1348 Followers: 4 Kudos [?]: 679 [0], given: 10 Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] ### Show Tags 30 Jun 2008, 07:15 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 ? B has several problems : 1.Modifier issue 2.with the sole intent that they will sell - sounds incomplete, - is wordy - "intent of" - correct idom - they - cyberquatters,complanies,domains?? E was a close contender 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 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

Simplifying further:

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who X, led to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those Y with the sole intent of selling The above SC may not exhibit IIlism but I guess its grammatically correct The answer choice has a different problem: 1. led to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 - logic is incoorect ,the sentence wordy The law was passed in 1999 and it needs special emphasis. Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 The passed in 1999 after the comma is more like "By the way, the law was passed" led to the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is concise Please let me know if you agree. Manager Joined: 07 Jul 2009 Posts: 222 Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 13 Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink] ### Show Tags 17 Jul 2009, 11:43 Between A and C, I would go with C. Led to the passage of seems much better than passing, and which correctly refers to the act. Senior Manager Joined: 16 Apr 2009 Posts: 324 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 134 [1] , given: 14 Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink] ### Show Tags 23 Aug 2009, 17:49 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
_________________

Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 585
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 705 [0], given: 20

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2010, 14:36
A is wrong: "led to the passing of..." isn't better than "led to the passage of the..."
"...act in 1999, allowing..." (suggests that companies were allowed to seek damages as a consequence of the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Not correct)

B. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows... (suggests that which modifies the preceding clause (is it?). Further "sole intent that will sell" should be "sole intent of selling")

C. the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows... with the sole intent of selling them later. The best of all.

D. the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows...with the sole intent to sell... (unnecessarily wordy and choppy)

E. wordy and changes intended meaning of the original sentence.

Please I stand to be corrected. Thanks.
_________________

KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 519

Kudos [?]: 1420 [24] , given: 11

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2010, 14:37
24
KUDOS
14
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hey All,

I got asked to take this one on by PM. Here we go!

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
PROBLEM: You can't "lead to passing". You have to lead to a thing, like "the passage" (or even "the passing" could've worked). "Allowing" is not the correct modifier type here (we're modifying a noun, not a whole clause, so the relative pronoun "which" is better).

(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 PROBLEM: The relative clause "which allows" seems to be modifying "1999", where we want the CPA itself. Also, we want "the sole intent OF selling", the correct idiom. (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 PROBLEM: We don't put a comma before the word "and" in a list of only two things. Also, the idiom with "sell" at the end is wrong. The "it", however, is not ambiguous (for those who are wondering), because it's the only singular noun before the pronoun. (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
PROBLEM: "Passed" and "allowing" are both participles, which means they're technically parallel, but it's still hideous. Also, the idiom at the end is wrong yet again.

Hope that helps!

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 961
Location: Singapore
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 808 [0], given: 36

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2010, 21:52
Tommy

That was eye opener. Yes I agree "it" is not ambiguous in D. The answer is between C and D. I was browsing through my notes and found that "intent to" is also idiomatic. Please can you throw some light on this.

Also isn't "they" ambiguous in choice B?

Kudos on the post !

thanks
_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 519

Kudos [?]: 1420 [4] , given: 11

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jul 2010, 21:30
4
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hey Hey.

Hmm, as far as I know, there is no idiom "intent to". You're probably thinking of the verb "intend", which indeed ought to be followed by "to", as in "I intend to leave San Francisco at the first available opportunity." With the noun "intent", the idiom is "sole intent of SOMETHING-ing", as we see in D. C is not actually correct in saying "intent to".

As for ambiguity, it's an iffy issue to begin with. In B, while you're technically correct that the pronoun "they" COULD refer to either "those (who...etc.)" or "companies", the fact is that it's fairly clear that we're referring to "those", because we're still modifying it: those WHO (register domain names) WITH the sole intent THAT they will sell...

If you see what I mean, we're still talking about the same "those". Now, what's more problematic is that we're using both "those" and "they" to talk about the same noun, which isn't even in the sentence! So it's definitely problematic, just more totally screwed up than simple ambiguity.

Hope that makes sense!

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 519

Kudos [?]: 1420 [1] , given: 11

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 11:30
1
KUDOS
Hey Gaura,

That's quite normal, because this is a bit weird. However, we're allowed to modify ACTION nouns in this way. There are certain nouns that imply actions: explosion, revolution, passage, etc. I can say "The 1995 explosion" or "The explosion in 1995". I can't do this for regular nouns: chair, bacon, monkeys. I can't say "The monkeys of 1995", or "The chair of 1995" (except in rare cases, if there's an actual category like "Wines of 1995").

Hope that clears it up!

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1203 [0], given: 2

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 11:45
Actually, those action nouns are preferable rather than noun-gerunds.
In this case, "the passage" sounds better than "the passing".

Please tommy correct me if im wrong
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 126
Followers: 61

Kudos [?]: 401 [3] , given: 1

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

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 08:34
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
For the original poster--I think you're asking if parallelism makes you say "led to the passage of"? If so, then yes, and that split is a really efficient way to tackle this question. The structure is:

"The proliferation (action noun)....led to...the passage (action noun)." (B and C)

Choice B violates the rule that tells you a comma followed by "which" must immediate follow the noun being modified: in choice B, this noun is "1999" rather than "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act." That leaves us with C. Quick and clean!

For noboru: I can see why you might think you need an object for "selling"--when we use "sell" as a verb it usually does come attached to the thing we're selling. It can however, be used as an intransitive verb (ex: I invented a new widget and am marketing it on the internet...I really hope it sells!). Additionally, notice that the participle "selling" follows the preposition "of" in choice C (and E, which is incorrect for other reasons mentioned by posters above). Here, "selling" is functioning as a *noun* -- the action of selling-- so we're in safe waters.
_________________

JP Park | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Los Angeles

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Forum Moderator
Status: mission completed!
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1404
GPA: 3.77
Followers: 181

Kudos [?]: 882 [8] , given: 621

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

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2010, 03:57
8
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

Audaces fortuna juvat!

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Forum Moderator
Status: mission completed!
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1404
GPA: 3.77
Followers: 181

Kudos [?]: 882 [0], given: 621

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

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2011, 06:00
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.
_________________

Audaces fortuna juvat!

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Posts: 255
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 656 [0], given: 11

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

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2011, 16:09
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"
_________________

Gmat: everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajit

Forum Moderator
Status: mission completed!
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1404
GPA: 3.77
Followers: 181

Kudos [?]: 882 [0], given: 621

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

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2011, 22:57
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.
_________________

Audaces fortuna juvat!

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Posts: 255
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 656 [0], given: 11

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

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2011, 04:45
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.
_________________

Gmat: everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajit

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3857
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 822

Kudos [?]: 6337 [2] , given: 324

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

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2011, 22:03
2
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 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.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 90
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2011, 02:17
i think the problem in B is not " which"
the problem in B is the using of " they" and " them"

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

they in B is " companies" or " names??? so its not clear
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 126
Followers: 61

Kudos [?]: 401 [2] , given: 1

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2011, 16:20
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
Vivesomnium, while "the passage of" might seem a little awkward at first, try ignoring the lengthy modifier between the first two commas to see the underlying structure:

THE PROLIFERATION...led to...[something else]

Potential parallelism issue! We want the thing that follows to be a noun, and there is an extant noun form of "passing" that is not being used--"passage." So if you recognized that on your initial read you can cross off A.

B and C use "passage," and D and E use the name of the act itself-- both these options are acceptable.

As a few people have pointed out above, B violates the ", which" rule-- 1999 is not the thing that allowed companies to seek damages. Eliminate. (diebeatsthegmat is also correct in identifying "they" as ambiguous--double whammy!)

(D) uses the pronoun "it," which is one of those red-flag pronouns--make sure "it" has a clear and correct antecedent. There are a couple of singular nouns before "it" in the sentence, so we have a slightly ambiguous situation. Sometimes pronoun ambiguity is tolerated, but the structure here implies the actual antecedent here is the wrong one.

SUBJECT-VERB...and...SUBJECT-VERB
THE PROLIFERATION led to...and IT (the PROLIFERATION) allows
--That's not the intended meaning! Eliminate.

So now we're down to C and E.

The structure of C is good--
The proliferation...led to...the passage...of the...Act, which allows companies to seek....damages.

The structure of E is not--
The proliferation...led to..the Act, PASSED and ALLOWING...
(not parallel)
Additionally, "they" is potentially ambiguous. Another double-whammy-- E is out.

That leaves us with C!
_________________

JP Park | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Los Angeles

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Re: GMAT Prep Question   [#permalink] 13 Mar 2011, 16:20

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 47 posts ]

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 5 17 Apr 2013, 15:16
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
Display posts from previous: Sort by