Sentence Correction

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 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 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 that they will sell

SC question, please take it to the proper head along with underlining.

IMO - C

I choosed C as asnwer. The reasons for that are:
better passage than passing. I don't know why, it just sounds me like that
in they will sell (B-E) the tense, to me, is wrong because it is not a fact that someone will sell but it is an intention
in they will sell anyway it is not clear whom they refer to
in and it allows (D-E) it is not clear whom it refers to
Is it all right so far? in some forums some say there were these following errors:
allowing (in A) modifies the subject of the preceding clause, i.e passing, rather than the act itself. Is it true that present particle-ing modifies the subject of the preceding clause?
which in B modifies 1999 rather than the act.
are these really other errors? then:
in D is which was passed in 1999, and it allows correct? and in E is passed in 1999, and it allows grammatically correct?
are there other errors?

confuse mind wrote:SC question, please take it to the proper head along with underlining.

IMO - C

yeas that's right

It can't be C as 'the passage' is not the right noun.
A is wrong due to the idiom 'intent of', we have intent to do sth or intent on doing sth
D is the correct answer

(C) is indeed the correct answer.

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 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 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 that they will sell[/quote]

IMO:C

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 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 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 that they will sell[/quote]

IMO:C

simone88 wrote: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 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 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 that they will sell

A:
The proliferation led to passing the Act, allowing companies to seek damages.
Here, it is not clear who or what is passing the act.
Generally, COMMA + VERBing refers to the subject of the preceding clause. Thus, the implication here is that the PROLIFERATION was allowing companies to seek damages -- not the intended meaning.
Eliminate A.

In B, they lacks a clear antecedent.
Also, which seems to refer to 1999, implying that the year itself allows companies to seek damages. Eliminate B.

D and E:
The proliferation led to the Act.
Not the intended meaning: the proliferation led not to the ACT itself but to the PASSAGE of the Act.
Also, led to the Act and passed in 1999 incorrectly imply that there were two distinct events. Not so. The intended meaning is that the events were concurrent: The proliferation LED to the PASSAGE in 1999 of the Act.
Also, it lacks a clear antecedent.
In E, they lacks a clear antecedent.

Eliminate D and E.

The correct answer is C.

GMATGuruNY wrote: Also, led to the Act and passed in 1999 incorrectly imply that there were two distinct events. Not so. The intended meaning is that the events were concurrent: The proliferation LED to the PASSAGE in 1999 of the Act.

But, to me, the construction of E is
"(The proliferation led to the act, passed in 1999) & it allows"
and not
"(the proliferation let to the act), (passed in 1999) & it allows"

So "passed in 1999" is a subordinate of "the proliferation led" and not another event along wiht "it allows" and, to me, itself is correct.

simone88 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: Also, led to the Act and passed in 1999 incorrectly imply that there were two distinct events. Not so. The intended meaning is that the events were concurrent: The proliferation LED to the PASSAGE in 1999 of the Act.

But, to me, the construction of E is
"(The proliferation led to the act, passed in 1999) & it allows"
and not
"(the proliferation let to the act), (passed in 1999) & it allows"

So "passed in 1999" is a subordinate of "the proliferation led" and not another event along wiht "it allows" and, to me, itself is correct.

A modifier set off by commas is NON-ESSENTIAL, implying that the modifier can be removed WITHOUT CHANGING THE BASIC MEANING of the sentence.
If remove passed in 1999 -- the non-essential modifier in E --we get:

The proliferation led to the Act, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages.

There are several issues here:
The proliferation led not to the Act itself but to the PASSAGE of the act.
It (subject pronoun) seems to refer to proliferation (the subject of the preceding clause), implying that the PROLIFERATION allows companies to seek damages.
The intended meaning of the sentence is that the proliferation of so-called cybersquatters led to a particular event that took place in 1999: the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Information Act.
What happened in 1999 is ESSENTIAL to the meaning of the sentence. Thus, the non-essential modifier in E (passed in 1999) does not convey the intended meaning.

Choice B: 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 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

@GMATGuruNY: In choice B above can't 'they' refer to people ? What does the two 'those' (highlighted in red) refer to ?