It is currently 23 Nov 2017, 11:22

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

5 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 245

Kudos [?]: 274 [5], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2008, 06:03
5
This post received
KUDOS
22
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (01:21) correct 53% (01:23) wrong based on 1645 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.
Added OA.

Kudos [?]: 274 [5], given: 0

30 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 347

Kudos [?]: 1684 [30], given: 11

Location: San Francisco
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2010, 14:37
30
This post received
KUDOS
16
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
ANSWER: All good.

(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

Kudos [?]: 1684 [30], given: 11

8 KUDOS received
Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: mission completed!
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1391

Kudos [?]: 966 [8], given: 621

GPA: 3.77
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2010, 03:57
8
This post received
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

Kudos [?]: 966 [8], given: 621

5 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 347

Kudos [?]: 1684 [5], given: 11

Location: San Francisco
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jul 2010, 21:30
5
This post received
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

Kudos [?]: 1684 [5], given: 11

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 125

Kudos [?]: 485 [3], given: 1

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

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2010, 08:34
3
This post received
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

Kudos [?]: 485 [3], given: 1

3 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4315

Kudos [?]: 8194 [3], given: 364

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2011, 22:03
3
This post received
KUDOS
1
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 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.
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8194 [3], given: 364

3 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1120

Kudos [?]: 2381 [3], given: 219

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, 07:28
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]

Kudos [?]: 2381 [3], given: 219

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 125

Kudos [?]: 485 [2], given: 1

Re: GMAT Prep Question [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Mar 2011, 16:20
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 485 [2], given: 1

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 317

Kudos [?]: 157 [1], given: 14

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

Show Tags

New post 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
_________________

Always tag your question

Kudos [?]: 157 [1], given: 14

1 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 347

Kudos [?]: 1684 [1], given: 11

Location: San Francisco
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2010, 11:30
1
This post received
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

Kudos [?]: 1684 [1], given: 11

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 125

Kudos [?]: 485 [1], given: 1

Re: GMAT Prep Question [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Mar 2011, 14:14
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

Kudos [?]: 485 [1], given: 1

1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1120

Kudos [?]: 2381 [1], given: 219

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, 01:09
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]

Kudos [?]: 2381 [1], given: 219

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 31

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2014, 07:35
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, 07:07, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 31

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 31

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

Show Tags

New post 20 Jun 2014, 07:40
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.

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 31

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 591

Kudos [?]: 480 [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 [?]: 480 [1], given: 200

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 933

Kudos [?]: 356 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 356 [0], given: 0

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 868 [0], given: 10

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

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 868 [0], given: 10

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 221

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 13

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 13

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 582

Kudos [?]: 843 [0], given: 20

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 843 [0], given: 20

Director
Director
avatar
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: 954

Kudos [?]: 922 [0], given: 36

Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

Kudos [?]: 922 [0], given: 36

Re: Consumer Protection Act in 1999   [#permalink] 27 Jul 2010, 21:52

Go to page    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®.