|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Aug 2017
Posts: 62
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
|
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the
[#permalink]
Show Tags
 01 Jun 2019, 00:40
I'm attempting to solve the question from a meaning-based approach.
In the original question stem, the usage of a '-ing' modifier ("allowing") must modify the right noun +verb. The noun and verb concerned here are "Proliferation...led".
For an '-ing' modifier to work, it must modify the right noun and verb with a resultant logical meaning. The 'proliferation' noun itself cannot allow the affected companies to pursue damages against the domain name perpetrators. Therefore, A is out.
Since we also know that a noun + verb cannot result in a 'thing' e.g. a legislative Act, in a purely literal grammatical sense, then only B & C would work (eliminate D & E immediately).
Only C moves the subject (the Act) right next to the "..comma + which", allowing the 'which' to modify the immediate preceding noun before the comma (rather than the year 1999, which doesn't make sense because it is not the 'year' that allows companies to pursue legal compensation).
Remember that 'which' modifies a noun, unless a 'prepositional phrase' cannot (without changing its original intended meaning) be placed elsewhere but between a noun and the comma. E.g. The Sarbanes Oxley Act was passed to enforce stricter accounting standards 'of financial reporting', which allowed authorities to clamp down on shadowy corporate practices.
In this example, it is the 'standards' which allowed authorities to clamp down on the corporate practices, and not 'reporting' itself. However, shifting 'of financial reporting' would dilute the intended meaning of the sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 1031
|
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Jun 2019, 06:00
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.
(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 "and" presents a difficult problem on gmat sc. "and" offers a parallelism. but the some choices offer a non parallel pattern. do we need a parallelism ? this is hard question which require meaning analysis. it is hard to explain that we do not need a parallelism but need a non parallel pattern. it is hard to explain why we do not need a parallelism presented by "and". choice D and E present a parallelism . it is hard to say that parallelism is not logic. yes. in choice D and E the parallelism is not logic. illogic parallelism is tested many times on gmat. be ready to meet it on the test day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2016
Posts: 105
Location: India
|
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jul 2019, 22:15
daagh 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 $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. ___ Hello Sir daagh, Amazing explanation! I have one query though, because of which I ended up selecting A. The original sentence clearly states - with the sole intent of selling them later. However, in rest of the choices, selling is not accompanied by a Noun. For instance, in option C - which allows companies to seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling WHAT ? That is why, I ended up sticking with the original sentence. Please help!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5561
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
|
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Jul 2019, 00:24
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.
_________________
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and above all the wisdom to know the difference. -The Serenity Prayer - A GMAT aspirant’s first entreaty
Over 200 pages of personal course material on all gamuts of GMAT SC for non-native speakers, great value for the money; 919884544509
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2016
Posts: 105
Location: India
|
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Jul 2019, 01:37
daagh wrote: 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. Okay, you are correct. I googled the question and found that "them later" was not underlined. Now this question becomes very clear. Thankyou Sir !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 64242
|
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Jul 2019, 01:54
daagh wrote: 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. ______________________ Fixed that. Thank you.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9038
|
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Jul 2019, 01:59
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who
[#permalink]
22 Jul 2019, 01:59
|
|
|
|
|
Go to page
Previous
1 2
[ 27 posts ]
|
|
close
