A company called the US Copyright Group (USCG) has filed seven lawsuits in Washington, DC, courts, naming over fourteen thousand defendants. The defendants are associated with personal computers implicated in USCG’s investigations of unauthorized movie downloads. The USCG contends that the strategy of prosecuting groups makes the most sense because each individual defendant lacks the assets and earning capacity to make individual prosecutions worthwhile financially. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) claims that USCG’s strategy deprives defendants of a fair chance to defend themselves. Because the vast majority of defendants in these cases do not live in Washington, DC—indeed, many live outside the United States—the travel and legal defense costs associated with contesting the charges are likely to be prohibitively high for them. Select EFF objects to for the statement that most accurately describes an aspect of USCG’s lawsuits to which the EFF objects; select On the basis that for the statement that most accurately describes the EFF’s basis for that objection. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Answer Explanation (Official): Evaluate: According to the passage, the EFF argues that because the vast majority of the defendants live outside of Washington, DC, where the USCG filed the suits, the travel and legal costs for the defendants to contest the charges would be prohibitively high—depriving the defendants of a fair chance to defend themselves. In other words, the EFF objects to the fact that each of the USCG’s suits was filed in the single location of Washington, DC but names a large number of defendants in other locations. And the basis of the EFF’s objection to this is that the costs associated with contesting the charges would be high for a large number of the defendants. EFF objects to: The correct answer is Each of the USCG’s suits was filed in a single location and names a large number of defendants in other locations. On the basis that: The correct answer is The costs associated with contesting the charges would be high for a large number of the defendants.

Stimulus : - USCG filed 7 lawsuits -- > lawsuits have name over 14000 defendants, who were pirating movies --- > EFF founds that USCG's strategy is unfair as it lacks fair chance defendants to defend themselves ---> The reasoning EFF provides is as majority o defendants are not in the same location where case is filed, so financially, it will be big burden for them Now question is asking two thing (Reading and understanding this is really helpful) 1. describes an aspect of USCG’s lawsuits to which EFF objects to : before seeing the options, I can guess that my answer will revolve around the location of the defendants 2. describes the EFF’s basis for that objection : before seeing the options, I think as per the stimulus the reason and pain point is around financial hardship of the defendants because of the travelling costs Now let's look at options : - The USCG filed multiple cases alleging copyright infringement, rather than naming all individuals in a single case. Ok this is a fact, but from the stimulus EFF's Objection is about Location of the cases not about filing multiple cases. Irrelevant The costs associated with contesting the charges would be high for a large number of the defendants. Hmm, Yes this could be our 2nd answer. why ? Because this is the reason because of which EFF feels that it's unfair for defendants. Keep Many defendants named in the cases likely did not infringe on copyrights. No clue about this from stimulus. Irrelevant The USCG investigated IP addresses associated with unauthorized downloading of movies. Again, Stimulus never talked about this. Irrelevant Each of the USCG’s suits was filed in a single location and names a large number of defendants in other locations. Yes, this is aspect of USCG's lawsuit to which EFF objects. Keep. This could be our 1st part answer The investigative methods employed by USCG violate the rights of Internet users. No where mentioned in stimulus. Irrelevant

Key to getting this one correct is noting the difference between that USCG merely did or could have done and what USCG did that EFF objects to. For example, the USCG could have violated the rights of Internet users, and USCG likely did investigate IP addresses associated with unauthorized downloading of movies, but neither of those actions is what EFF objects to.

A company called the US Copyright Group (USCG) has filed seven lawsuit : Two-part Analysis (TPA)

A company called the US Copyright Group (USCG) has filed seven lawsuit

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

EFF objects to	On the basis that
		The USCG filed multiple cases alleging copyright infringement, rather than naming all individuals in a single case.
		The costs associated with contesting the charges would be high for a large number of the defendants.
		Many defendants named in the cases likely did not infringe on copyrights.
		The USCG investigated IP addresses associated with unauthorized downloading of movies.
		Each of the USCG’s suits was filed in a single location and names a large number of defendants in other locations.
		The investigative methods employed by USCG violate the rights of Internet users.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions