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

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.

Vishnu, Could you pl. check the underlining. According to many versions such as in 'Beat the GMAT', 'them' is not underlined. Some others have underlined both the words 'them later. Admin can help us perhaps in this regard to get us the correct version .

But A is rather odd. 'Led to passing' is not in the vibe of standard English, I suppose. The gerund passing is not correct when a standard noun passage is handily available in some other choice. Point 2. Look at the participle 'allowing'. What does it modify? The previous clause is ' the proliferation of cybersquatters led "Did the proliferation lead the allowing? This is awful meaning.
Therefore A is out.

Vishnu, Could you pl. check the underlining. According to many versions such as in 'Beat the GMAT', 'them' is not underlined. Some others have underlined both the words 'them later. Admin can help us perhaps in this regard to get us the correct version .

But A is rather odd. 'Led to passing' is not in the vibe of standard English, I suppose. The gerund passing is not correct when a standard noun passage is handily available in some other choice. Point 2. Look at the participle 'allowing'. What does it modify? The previous clause is ' the proliferation of cybersquatters led "Did the proliferation lead the allowing? This is awful meaning.
Therefore A is out.

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"?

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

TommyWallach DmitryFarber GMATNinja Could the "it" also refer back to proliferation? --> The proliferation of bla bla led to the "ACT protection act",which was passed in 1999 (non-essential info), and IT allows companies to do X. What allows companies to do X? The proliferation or the ACT act? Moreover parrallelism is gone, so D and E are out.
Is my reasoning correct?