GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

 It is currently 22 Apr 2018, 20:54

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# V07-10

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 44599

### Show Tags

Updated on: 23 Jul 2015, 10:03
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

33% (01:10) correct 67% (01:32) wrong based on 160 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 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 allowed companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling [Reveal] Spoiler: OA _________________ Originally posted by Bunuel on 16 Sep 2014, 02:28. Last edited by souvik101990 on 23 Jul 2015, 10:03, edited 1 time in total. Math Expert Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 44599 Re V07-10 [#permalink] ### Show Tags 16 Sep 2014, 02:28 Official Solution: 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 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 allowed companies to seek up to$100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

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 $$100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell ----- and allowed companies is wrong in the context. The structure wrongly implies that the proliferation allowed companies to seek up to$$100000 in damages .

_________________
Intern
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 49
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.83

### Show Tags

06 Nov 2014, 04:22
Bunuel wrote:
Official Solution:

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 seed 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

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. Answer: C Did not understand this at all. Would appreciate a detailed explanation, if possible. Director Joined: 10 Mar 2013 Posts: 563 Location: Germany Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24 GPA: 3.88 WE: Information Technology (Consulting) Re: V07-10 [#permalink] ### Show Tags 16 Mar 2015, 09:53 narrowed to A&C - picked C at the end. (A) 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 seed up to$100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later
-->WRONG. The proliferation ....., led to passing....ALLOWING - WHEN using an ING-Modifier after a comma, it must make sense with the subject and the verb of the clause (before the comma) --> The Subject of the clause is the is PROLIFERATION, so it can not allow something Consumer protection act is the OBJECT here and can not be linked to - allowing

Hope this helps, Experts please correct me if I'm wrong.
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Intern
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 6

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2015, 06:35
I think this is a poor-quality question and I agree with explanation. There is a typo in the question and first three answers- seed should be changed to seek
Intern
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 6

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2015, 06:37
I think this is a poor-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. The question choices are not the same as those repeated in the explanations
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4935
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2015, 10:03
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Edited the typos. Thank you for reporting.
_________________
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1183
Location: India

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2015, 03:29
Although I agree with the explanation, option C did not seem good in construction.

given sentence

Quote:
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 seed up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later. option C is Quote: 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

The final sentence if u substitute option C in given sentence is

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 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. sth led to the passage in 1999 of the Act does not sound correct for me. Also sentence ends with verb selling. Selling what? It does not complete it. _________________ The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed. Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions Avoid posting from unreliable sources. My posts http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924 http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773 https://gmatclub.com/forum/improve-reading-habit-233410.html#p1802265 Intern Joined: 20 Jul 2015 Posts: 3 Re: V07-10 [#permalink] ### Show Tags 20 Dec 2015, 10:48 I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. answer choice (D) repeated/ illogical Intern Joined: 26 Dec 2015 Posts: 12 Location: India Concentration: Finance, General Management GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V39 GPA: 3.2 Re: V07-10 [#permalink] ### Show Tags 06 Mar 2016, 04:21 Bunuel wrote: Official Solution: 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 seed 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 them later. 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 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 allowing companies to seek up to$100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

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.

I marked B as the answer. i am not sure why is it incorrect because if two modifiers modify the same noun, one has to come before the other. Plus, the construction of choice c is really awkward.

Please clarify if i am wrong.
Intern
Joined: 01 Sep 2014
Posts: 8

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2016, 06:26
OA (D) is incorrect
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3226
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2016, 08:23
rpriya wrote:
OA (D) is incorrect

OA is C, not D.
Current Student
Joined: 12 Nov 2015
Posts: 60
Location: Uruguay
Concentration: General Management
Schools: Goizueta '19 (A)
GMAT 1: 610 Q41 V32
GMAT 2: 620 Q45 V31
GMAT 3: 640 Q46 V32
GPA: 3.97

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2016, 16:00
I hope I don't get a similar phrase on test day! I suppose there are a few problems with the construction of the phrase.

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters.. led to the passage it's rather odd that is leeds to the passage, can it lead to a passage? hmm..
Other BIG concern with the answer is the Selling at the end of phrase. Selling what? Selling is ambiguous at the end of the phrase since we do not know what SELLING is referred to. It should be Selling the domains so we are certain of what these people are selling. as far as the phrase puts the selling at the end, the companies could be the ones selling, or being sold
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3226
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2016, 15:28
Avigano wrote:
I hope I don't get a similar phrase on test day! I suppose there are a few problems with the construction of the phrase.

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters.. led to the passage it's rather odd that is leeds to the passage, can it lead to a passage? hmm..
Other BIG concern with the answer is the Selling at the end of phrase. Selling what? Selling is ambiguous at the end of the phrase since we do not know what SELLING is referred to. It should be Selling the domains so we are certain of what these people are selling. as far as the phrase puts the selling at the end, the companies could be the ones selling, or being sold

Here "led to" is used to convey the meaning "resulted in". Proliferation led to (resulted in) the passage of a law is alright - there were were many cybersquatters, therefore the law was passed.

Check the underlined portion now - it would make sense.
Current Student
Joined: 12 Nov 2015
Posts: 60
Location: Uruguay
Concentration: General Management
Schools: Goizueta '19 (A)
GMAT 1: 610 Q41 V32
GMAT 2: 620 Q45 V31
GMAT 3: 640 Q46 V32
GPA: 3.97

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2016, 15:34
sayantanc2k wrote:
Avigano wrote:
I hope I don't get a similar phrase on test day! I suppose there are a few problems with the construction of the phrase.

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters.. led to the passage it's rather odd that is leeds to the passage, can it lead to a passage? hmm..
Other BIG concern with the answer is the Selling at the end of phrase. Selling what? Selling is ambiguous at the end of the phrase since we do not know what SELLING is referred to. It should be Selling the domains so we are certain of what these people are selling. as far as the phrase puts the selling at the end, the companies could be the ones selling, or being sold

Here "led to" is used to convey the meaning "resulted in". Proliferation led to (resulted in) the passage of a law is alright - there were were many cybersquatters, therefore the law was passed.

Check the underlined portion now - it would make sense.

1) Got it
2) Yes!

Thank you.
Intern
Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Posts: 5

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2016, 11:00
an -ING after the comma, always modifies the clause before it.
A. Incorrect
B. Incorrect because "Which after the comma modifies the 1999, and also which cannot be used to modify the preceeding clause"
C. Correcy
D. Way to wordy
E. the effect ("charging the cheater") mentioned in the later part of the sentence is because of the Act "Passage of act" not because of the cause "proliferation", as this sentence formation suggests, hence incorrect.
Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Location: India
Schools: IIMA (I)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.2

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2016, 02:42
there must be some noun after 'those"
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3226
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2016, 12:12
vishnu440 wrote:
there must be some noun after 'those"

I understand your point - "this", "that", "these", and "those" as demonstrative pronouns should have noun following them. However another use of "that" and "those" is to create a new copy of a noun that has already been used in te sentence. In such cases there is no need for a noun to follow, since the pronoun itself replaces the noun.

Here "those" is used to replace "people".

Another example: My books are more interesting than those of yours.
Current Student
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 96
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2016, 06:29
I think this is a poor-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate.
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3226
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2016, 11:38
shashanksagar wrote:
I think this is a poor-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate.

If you could specify what your query is, then we could respond accordingly - why do you think that this question is of poor quality and which part of the explanation is not clear ?
Re: V07-10   [#permalink] 18 Jul 2016, 11:38

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 35 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# V07-10

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel

 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®.