GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 24 Sep 2018, 22:21

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

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 249
Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Apr 2008, 20:05
1
4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

87% (01:21) correct 13% (01:10) wrong based on 513 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 89
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2008, 02:46
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"
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1412
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2008, 08:06
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Posts: 1
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jun 2013, 07:35
1
1
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
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 122
Schools: HBS '16, Stanford '16
Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2013, 08:47
1
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!
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1060
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2013, 10:06
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.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 13
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Foster '17
GMAT Date: 01-14-2015
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Sep 2013, 06:24
2
danzig wrote:
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!
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!
_________________

Please +1 KUDOS this post if you found it helpful! Thanks!

Economist GMAT Tutor Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Posts: 12
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2013, 04:51
4
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.




neelesh wrote:
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

_________________

http://econgm.at/economistgmat
Economist GMAT Tutor
(866) 292-0660

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 807
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Premium Member
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jun 2014, 07:16
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)
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2014
Posts: 15
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2014, 12:02
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.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4545
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2016, 10:50
1
Top Contributor
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 --- suffers 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.

One 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.

_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2967
Premium Member
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2018, 04:35
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.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting &nbs [#permalink] 08 Sep 2018, 04:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.