Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting

Question

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor  charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were  subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

IlanaEconomistGMAT · Accepted Answer

A few comments: 'Being' isn't a safe criterion for just eliminating off the bat, as sometimes correct answer choices do use 'being'.

Here is my take on the question:

A and D should be eliminated, because "unlikely  in " is non-idiomatic. The correct preposition to use with 'likely' or 'unlikely' is 'to'. Answer choices B, C, and E use 'unlikely to', so let's take a look at them.

Answer choice C is a run-on sentence. There is no preposition or connector connecting the fragment "federal prosecutors...infringers' to the previous part of the sentence. Thus the sentence as a whole is syntactically deficient. To makes sense, the sentence needs either a preposition, such as "with" (B) or punctuation or a conjunction, as in D and E
 (semicolon and 'therefore').

This leaves us with answer choices B and E to choose from.

Answer choice B incorrectly uses the defining relative pronoun 'who' to describe 'federal prosecutors'. This is illogical. The point of the sentence isn't to define or characterize federal prosecutors as folks who always will not pursue copyright offenders. Furthermore, the phrase 'with federal prosecutors, etc.' poorly modifies what comes previously. We can't say of a 'misdemeanor charge' that it is 'with federal prosecutors, etc.' This answer choice falls on what the OG calls 'logical predication'. The use of 'being' also adds to the poor construction of this sentence.

This leaves us with E, which inserts punctuation and a conjunction to clarify the logical relations between clauses, and clean up the muddled string of modifiers.

carlson2010 · Answer

I say E

A. Wrong because of "being unlikely"
B. Wrong because of "with federal prosecutors"...with what?
C. Wrong because the first part of the sentence says, "first-time charge of copyright infringement WAS merely a misdemeanor," so when mentioning federal prosecutors one should use the past tense. This sentence doesn't.
D. Wrong because of "offenders being subject"

terp26 · Answer

C is wrong, the middle part of the sentence totally upsets the flow of the sentence. It looks as if it was just placed right in the middle of the sentence with no bearing on the meaning.

sudkumar · Answer

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were 
federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers is a run on sentence hence wrong

B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being 
With federal prosecuter -wrong modifier 
Being always wordy

C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were 
same as B wrong modifier

D.  charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being 
prosecutors were....... and "offenders being" not parallel

E.  charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were  
cause and effect relationship by using Therefore
 correct parallelism between prosecutors were.....and offenders were hence correct answer
_________________

danzig · Answer

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor  charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were  subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were 
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being 
C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were 
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being 
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

These are my doubts: 
In B, does "with" change the meaning of the sentence?, is it ilogical? 
In E, what kind of relationship between two clauses does a semicolon stablish? For example, when we use "AND" to connect two clauses, the AND implies that there is no relationship between those clauses. Both are independent. But when we use "OR", the relationship between the clauses is different. In that sense, does the semicolon stablish a relationship between the two clauses that it connects? 
Also in E, does "therefore" affect the two clauses after it? I say this because, as I mentioned before, the two clauses connected by AND are independents from each other. Thanks!

pqhai · Answer

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor  charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were  subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors  being  unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders  were  
 Wrong.  Parallelism problem.

B. charge, with federal prosecutors who  were unlikely to pursue  criminal copyright infringers, offenders  being  
 Wrong.  Because a comma separates two clauses, "with" does not attach to the preceding clause thus it does not change meaning. Yet "with" does not make sense either. 
Parallelism problem: see red part.

C. charge, federal prosecutors  unlikely to pursue  criminal copyright infringers, while offenders  were  
 Wrong.  Parallelism problem.

D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors  were  unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders  being  
 Wrong.  Parallelism problem.

E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors  were  unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders  were  
  Correct.   The semicolon separates two clauses. The clause before a semicolon is the main clause, the clause after a semicolon is dependent clause. 
In addition, "and" is also used to connect two independent clauses, which provide more information for the main clause (the one before a semicolon). Because two results (fed prosecutors were...... & offenders were......) are different and happen simultaneously, thus "and" is correct.
 
Hope it helps.

lukep · Answer

To answer your questions:
The "with" does change the meaning of the sentence insofar as it makes it not make sense. The reason we might miss this is because the with- clause has a who- clause embedded in it, distracting you from the fact that the with clause is missing something important. 
Here's what that means.
(1) The iPhone 5c is extremely popular, with shoppers lining up overnight to buy it.
(2) The iPhone 5c is extremely popular, with shoppers who queued overnight leaving stores tired but satisfied.

If you look at (2), it would be grammatical, if a bit nonsensical, if we left out the who-clause (The iPhone 5c is popular, with shoppers leaving stores tired but satisfied.) The problem with B is that we don't have a verb to go with the noun  federal prosecutors . Take a look at what happens when you take out the who- clause

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor  charge, with federal prosecutors, offenders being  subject to relatively small penalties.

You need a verb to go with the noun federal prosecutors. This could be fixed as:

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor  charge, with federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being  subject to relatively small penalties.

As to your second question, "therefore" is a really common word to come after a semi-colon. It doesn't change the meaning, but it does help to emphasize the causal link between the two clauses.

Hope that helps!

TGC · Answer

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

Construction IC,Modifier,DC which is wrong so A/B/C are out.

'To pursue' is better than 'in pursuing'

Hence (E)

supi12 · Answer

Option C is not a run-on since it is not a sentence. To be a sentence, we need a verb, whereas "federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers" does not contain a verb.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

daagh · Answer

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor  charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were  subject to relatively small penalties.

Is this question from Veritas or GMAT Prep? The tag seems to suggest it is from Veritas. 
that aside--

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were -----
 1.when there are two modifiers that modify a previous clause, you need to conjugate them properly with a coordinator such as ''and'. 2. 'being unlikely' is unidiomatic; after all, the whole issue is one of the past and as of now this practice is not extant. 3. When you have two modifiers you cannot have one as a phrase and the other as a clause. In this case , the "while offenders' clause is a dependent clause with a verb 'were'. 4. The use of 'while' is dubious. It is sometimes used to denote a contrast and here there is no contrast involved.

B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being --- s uffers from the first two faults

C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were --  fault 1 and 3 and 4.

D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being --  In the second clause, the first part is a clause while the second part is a phrase. -//ism error.

E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were --  Correct choice. surmounts all the pitfalls of the previous charges.

O ne small note about the use of the semi-colon. What comes after a semi-colon, must be an independent clause. But it should be also a related clause with some relevance to the previous clause. E is an independent clause and related the whole issue. Independence does not mean unrelatedness.

Example. I went to New York to see Tommy; somebody was busy planning about building a wall around the US. This sentence is absurd as my going to New York has no relation to somebody being busy with building walls. Therefore, using a semicolon is wrong. 
However, the following will be correct. --- I went to New York to see Tommy; I couldn't meet him as he had suddenly left for seeing his bed-ridden father. - You can see the relatedness between the first clause before and the second clause after the semicolon.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

This question is based on Idiomatic Usage and Construction.

The adjective ‘unlikely’ is followed by an infinitive and not a participle. The conjunction ‘while’ implies a contrast that is not intended by the sentence. So, Option A can be eliminated.

Option D also contains the idiomatically inappropriate usage – unlikely in pursuing. So, Option D can also be eliminated.

Option C is a run-on sentence. The phrase “federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers” should have had a verb and a conjunction to separate it from the first part of the sentence. So, Option C can be eliminated.

In Option B, the two phrases “with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers and offenders being subject to relatively small penalties” are placed one after the other with no clear connection to the first part of the sentence. The sentence seems to convey the meaning that federal prosecutors were part of the misdemeanor charge. The last participle phrase has no logical subject. Since the sentence is illogical, Option B can be ruled out.

Option E has a semi-colon separating the two parts of the sentence. The transition word ‘therefore’ logically connects the two parts of the sentence by indicating that the reason federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers and offenders were subject to relatively small penalties is that a first time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge until the passage of the Act. Therefore, E is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar

thangvietnam · Answer

first, talk about a pattern "main clause+comma+with+noun+doing/do-ed/adjective.

in this pattern, some times, "with" can be omitted.

"comma+with..." can modify the main clause, showing context, reason and effect of the main clause. 
I learn gmat tonight, with many person going out.
we also have a pattern "with+noun" , which modify the main clause, showing the instrument of the main action. 
I write with a pen.

now, look at choice A , B and C and see whether they are fit to the patterns above. (remember, we can omit "'with" in the first pattern )

choice A. 
comma+noun+doing is fit to the first pattern. so, 'federal... infringers" is good. but 'while offender..." is not good. this clause need to modifiy a full independent clause. so, it must modify the main clause, "the charge were... this modification is not logical. in summary, the choice A is grammatical but not logical. 
choice B
'with +prosecutors" fit the second pattern, in which "with+noun" shows instrument. but there is no instrument here. there is only persons. this choice is grammatical but illogical.
choice C
"prosecutors unlikely" is fit to the first pattern. this phrase is grammatical but "offender were..." , like choice A, is wrong.

Jaya6 · Answer

Hi, could you please highlight the words that make the two sentences independent of each other? As in please highlight the sub, verb and object of the two given sentences.

harish555 · Answer

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
Prosecutors being unlikely – Absolutely absurd formation. A is out

B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
Offenders being – Wrong. With prosecutors, offenders – Illogical meaning

C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
Intended meaning is wrong. If offenders were subject to relatively small penalties, then federal prosecutors were pursuing criminal copyright infringers . That s not the intended meaning.

D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
Unlikely in – wrong idiom, federal prosecutors were(verb) and offenders being(gerund), Verb is missing. Wrong parallelism

E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were
federal prosecutors were and offenders were ..

debjit1990 · Answer

Ans:E
A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards