Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 03:05 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 03:05
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
User avatar
daagh
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 16 Oct 2020
Posts: 5,264
Own Kudos:
42,419
 [1]
Given Kudos: 422
Status: enjoying
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,264
Kudos: 42,419
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Victz
Joined: 14 Mar 2020
Last visit: 19 Sep 2025
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 315
Status:Having fun Growing Mental Agility & Toughness (GMAT) ^_^
Mantra: "There is a will, there is a way."
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35 (Online)
GMAT 2: 720 Q47 V42
GMAT 3: 740 Q49 V41
Products:
GMAT 3: 740 Q49 V41
Posts: 56
Kudos: 127
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,844
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,844
Kudos: 8,945
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
Michele4
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Last visit: 06 Jun 2021
Posts: 20
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 46
Posts: 20
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TommyWallach
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?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,788
 [3]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,788
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Michele4
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?
Yes! In choices (D) and (E), the ", and" does seem to link two independent clauses, where the "it" (the subject of the second clause) refers back to "proliferation" (the subject of the first clause). But that doesn't make any sense because it's the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act that allows, not the proliferation.

It might work if we had, "... the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which (1) was passed in 1999 and (2) allows companies to seek..." (parallel list of verbs) OR "... the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, (1) passed in 1999 and (2) allowing companies to seek..." (parallel list of modifiers). But we don't get that sort of parallel structure in either (D) or (E).

Lastly, in (D) and (E), we have, "The proliferation... led to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act..." -- but the proliferation really led to the passage of the Act, not to the Act itself.

So there are plenty of reasons to scrap (D) and (E).

I hope that helps!
User avatar
CRACKGMATNUT
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Last visit: 26 May 2024
Posts: 150
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 30
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Posts: 150
Kudos: 31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi EducationAisle In option D, Is usage of "it" and "to sell" wrong here? It does makes sense for "it" to be ambiguous due to subject of preceding clause rule, but I'm not sure about "to sell", which is preceded by intent. Having "Intent" of something is intrinsic to "to be verb", so as per me it's totally fine. Am I right here?

What could be a good decision point to eliminate option D?
User avatar
EducationAisle
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mayank221133
Hi EducationAisle In option D, Is usage of "it" and "to sell" wrong here? It does makes sense for "it" to be ambiguous due to subject of preceding clause rule, but I'm not sure about "to sell", which is preceded by intent. Having "Intent" of something is intrinsic to "to be verb", so as per me it's totally fine. Am I right here?

What could be a good decision point to eliminate option D?
Oh yes, I would definitely not use "of selling" vs "to sell" as a split, since there are multiple better splits available.
avatar
pk6969
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Jan 2022
Posts: 136
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.2
Posts: 136
Kudos: 14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ssandeepan
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 seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $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 seek 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

Attachment:
Untitled.png

I can't understand why is "which modifier" a problem in B. I have seen various cases when which jumps over the prepositional phrase, so why not here?? IanStewart DmitryFarber GMATNinja
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,145
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,145
Kudos: 10,989
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pk6969

I can't understand why is "which modifier" a problem in B. I have seen various cases when which jumps over the prepositional phrase, so why not here?? IanStewart DmitryFarber GMATNinja

I don't think I understand the question - there isn't a problem with how "which" is used in answer B. Answer B and the correct answer, Answer C, both use "which" in the same way. It's the end of answer B that makes it wrong.
avatar
pk6969
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Jan 2022
Posts: 136
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.2
Posts: 136
Kudos: 14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IanStewart
pk6969

I can't understand why is "which modifier" a problem in B. I have seen various cases when which jumps over the prepositional phrase, so why not here?? IanStewart DmitryFarber GMATNinja

I don't think I understand the question - there isn't a problem with how "which" is used in answer B. Answer B and the correct answer, Answer C, both use "which" in the same way. It's the end of answer B that makes it wrong.

In B, its "act in 1999", and some experts above are saying its wrong because which is modifying 1999 and thus doesn't make sense. But I don't think that should be a problem because in many questions, I have seen that which jumps over preposition phrase.
In C, which in modifying act because 1999 has been mentioned earlier.
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,145
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,145
Kudos: 10,989
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Oh sorry, now I see what you mean (I should have skimmed through the thread before replying :) ). Yes, I agree with you, and not with the earlier posts in this thread. For clarity, I suppose it's preferable to use "which" the way C does, rather than how B does, but it's not an absolute requirement; either way it's clear what the sentence is saying. The end of B is the more decisive issue.
avatar
KalyanChamarthi
Joined: 04 Feb 2020
Last visit: 05 Jun 2023
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 14
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 32
Kudos: 17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Wrong: what is allowing companies is not 1999 - the wrong modifier
B. Wrong: what allows companies is not 1999 - wrong usage of which
C. Correct: the phrase after which correctly modifies the Consumer Protection Act.
D. Wrong: the pronoun it is ambiguous
E. Wrong: Same reason as in D.
avatar
750Barrier
Joined: 06 May 2015
Last visit: 21 Sep 2023
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 35
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Posts: 38
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TommyWallach
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


Hi Tommy,
The end in C and E are same. Can you please relook ? I chose E , but i am still not sure why E is wrong. Please help
avatar
750Barrier
Joined: 06 May 2015
Last visit: 21 Sep 2023
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 35
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Posts: 38
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
kunalarya
TommyWallach
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


Hi Tommy,
The end in C and E are same. Can you please relook ? I chose E , but i am still not sure why E is wrong. Please help

I think - I got it.

The Proliferation led to the passage and not to the act itself. That is wrong in E.
User avatar
thangvietnam
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Last visit: 09 Mar 2023
Posts: 768
Own Kudos:
418
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,198
Posts: 768
Kudos: 418
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
for nonnative in the test room, it is hard to differentiate the meanings between comma+doing and which do

comma+doing means that the subject of main clause perform action of doing and the action of doing semantically relate to the main action. we need to check whether it is logical that the subject perform the action of doing first and then check whether the meaning relation between two actions is logical

in choice a,
subject proliferation of cybers allow companies to claim. this is not logical. choice a is wrong.

meaning error sometimes is very hard for non native though there are no hard grammatical points involved. native speaker could find this kind of error easy.
User avatar
gmatimothy
Joined: 18 Apr 2022
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 111
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 704
Location: United States
Posts: 111
Kudos: 9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ssandeepan
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 seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

"...led to passing the act" is wrong. You can't say LEAD TO + verb. It must be a gerund, and it's not the case in this choice. In order for this sentence to work, it should say "...led to THE PASSING OF THE ACT"

(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell

"Intent of" is the correct idiom

"which" seems to modify 1999 (not a deal breaker but C clears this issue)


(C) the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

CORRECT! "...led to the PASSAGE"

This choice also puts "in 1999" so "which" that follows clearly modifies "Act"


(D) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell

(E) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

Attachment:
Untitled.png
User avatar
Raman109
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

Option Elimination -

(A) 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 - "proliferation led to the passage.." is better. Moreover, ING, after the comma, is adverbial and modifies "The proliferation led."Just because the proliferation led doesn't allow companies to seek compensation.

(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell - "which" modifies the nearest noun "1999" - wrong. Moreover, "they" why?

(C) the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling - "which" modifies the act. Ok. "intent of selling" is better.

(D) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell - "it" is ambiguous. It can refer to the "proliferation" or the "act." Moreover, "intent of selling is better."

(E) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling - the same issue of "it" as in D
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts