BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982

by maihuna » Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:38 am
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
[spoiler]Answer:E[/spoiler]
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Legendary Member
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: California
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by heshamelaziry » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:57 pm
IMO E. It is the only one that is concise and doesn't seem awkward.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:51 pm
Followed by:2 members

by chrispy » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:16 pm
Everything up to "charge" is an independent clause and should be separately appropriately; in this case, a semicolon can be used, eliminating A, B, and C. Logically, this also makes sense since it follows that federal prosecutors would be unlike to pursue infringers while the crime was still a misdemeanor. Between D and E, D uses a conjunction ("and") between an independent clause ("federal prosecutors...infringers" and a dependent clause ("offenders being...") with no comma. You're left with E, which changed the last part ("offenders were...") into another independent clause and connected it correctly.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:21 am
gmat make up many strange sentence patterns which is hard to understand.So, we check grammar to quickly sort out the choices ungrammatical before the choices illogical

"offender being" in D as no coordinated element (because of "and")

check meaning logic

in A, "prosecutor being" is happening at the time of previous action "was". this is not logic.this pattern is call "absolute phrase".pls read more in grammar book.

in B, "with prosecutor..." means that this happen before previous action "was" . this is not logic

in C, the pattern " main clause, noun +adjective phrase or which clause" is used when noun refers to entire main clause. This is not logic. for example,

she is beautiful, a fact which I know----this is correct

patterns in A, B, C require us to understand the last modifying phrases
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:59 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by brick2009 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:29 pm
Before the law...it was a minor issue, THEREFORE feds didn't pursue the cases.

Down to D/E

D Is wrong for many reasons...
- being
- unlikely in pursuing ???


E --fixes those...
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:15 am
maihuna 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
[spoiler]Answer:E[/spoiler]
Can anyone please explain this one in more details>
Best-
Amit
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:18 am
if you understand the basics of parallelism, you can actually solve this whole problem without using anything else.

keep in mind, though, that successful use of parallelism is not just mechanical; it also requires an understanding of the MEANING of the sentence.
some posters on this forum seem to treat sentences as if they were 100% mechanical objects. while that sort of approach is effective in a few instances -- such as evaluating subject-verb agreement -- it's far from sufficient to solve sentence correction problems in general. in order to ramp up your SC success to the next level, you have to pair an understanding of mechanics with an understanding of meaning.

in the case of parallelism:
if the sentence contains PARALLEL CONCEPTS -- i.e., concepts that describe the same sort of thing, in the same sort of way, at the same priority -- then those concepts should appear in parallel structures.
conversely, for concepts that are NOT parallel, you can't use parallelism as a process of elimination.

--

in this problem:
there are three historical statements:
1) a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor
2) federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue infringers
3) offenders were subject to small penalties

note that, of these three statements, only #2 and #3 are PARALLEL CONCEPTS.
specifically, the first is an independent historical statement, while #2 and #3 are both CONSEQUENCES of that statement (consequences that are presented with equal priority).

therefore, the sentence should be written in a way such that #2 and #3 are parallel. since fact #1 is not conceptually parallel to anything in the sentence, we can ignore it in this analysis.

let's examine the parallelism of #2 and #3 in each answer choice:
maihuna wrote:A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright
infringers, while offenders were
not parallel.
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright
infringers, offenders being
not parallel.
C. charge, federal prosecutors (--no verb form--) unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while
offenders were
not parallel.
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal
copyright infringers and offenders being
not parallel.
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright
infringers, and offenders were
parallel.

(e) wins.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:08 am
lunarpower wrote:if you understand the basics of parallelism, you can actually solve this whole problem without using anything else.

keep in mind, though, that successful use of parallelism is not just mechanical; it also requires an understanding of the MEANING of the sentence.
some posters on this forum seem to treat sentences as if they were 100% mechanical objects. while that sort of approach is effective in a few instances -- such as evaluating subject-verb agreement -- it's far from sufficient to solve sentence correction problems in general. in order to ramp up your SC success to the next level, you have to pair an understanding of mechanics with an understanding of meaning.

in the case of parallelism:
if the sentence contains PARALLEL CONCEPTS -- i.e., concepts that describe the same sort of thing, in the same sort of way, at the same priority -- then those concepts should appear in parallel structures.
conversely, for concepts that are NOT parallel, you can't use parallelism as a process of elimination.

--

in this problem:
there are three historical statements:
1) a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor
2) federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue infringers
3) offenders were subject to small penalties

note that, of these three statements, only #2 and #3 are PARALLEL CONCEPTS.
specifically, the first is an independent historical statement, while #2 and #3 are both CONSEQUENCES of that statement (consequences that are presented with equal priority).

therefore, the sentence should be written in a way such that #2 and #3 are parallel. since fact #1 is not conceptually parallel to anything in the sentence, we can ignore it in this analysis.

let's examine the parallelism of #2 and #3 in each answer choice:
maihuna wrote:A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright
infringers, while offenders were
not parallel.
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright
infringers, offenders being
not parallel.
C. charge, federal prosecutors (--no verb form--) unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while
offenders were
not parallel.
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal
copyright infringers and offenders being
not parallel.
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright
infringers, and offenders were
parallel.

(e) wins.
Hey Ron....Thanks a heap for such a detailed analysis.....you rock!
Best-
Amit
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:50 am
I'd too marked E as the answer...
While making a final decision to mark an answer...I do trust my EAR..
but never thought of PARALLEL CONCEPTS... have to cultivate a habit of thinking on these lines...

Thanx a lot Ron, ur posts are enlightening.
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:58 am
It took me almost 2 minutes 30 seconds. However, good thing is that I got correct answer that is E

I easily eliminated A, B and D

A - being unlikely in pursuing - is not correct
B - being is not required, 'were' is good here
D - I don't think 'unlikely in pursuing' is correct. IMO 'unlikely to pursue' is correct. (Ron or any other expert please guide me)

I down to C and E, these both choices took me lot of time to decide on E

I eliminated C because of 'while'. Use while only when 2 simultaneous things are in progress

federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were subject to relatively small penalties can not be ||el processes. Therefore, I eliminated C. - Ron or any other expert please let me know if I am correct

E wins
maihuna 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
[spoiler]Answer:E[/spoiler]
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:18 am
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:1 members

by indiantiger » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:33 pm
IMO E
"Single Malt is better than Blended"
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:53 am

by Jai_itguys » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:31 am
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.

IMO this is a problem of run on sentence. A run on sentence occurs when 2 independent clauses(IC) are not joined appropriately.

IC1: Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, (Actually this is a dependent clause + Independent clause but relative to 2nd part of the sentance you can practically treat it as an IC)

IC2: federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

Rule to join IC: Independent clauses may be joined by a [comma and a conjunction (and,but,or etc)], or by a semicolon, or by a dash.

The choices A,B,C are out straight away as they violate rule 1-joined by a [comma and a conjunction (and,but,or etc)]. Now we are left with choices D and E. If you choose option D the last part of the sentance will become "and offenders being subject to relatively small penalties" which is a sentence fragment. Remember 'being' in 'offenders being' is not acting as a verb. the -ing form of the verb always require a helping verb. The correct answer is 'E'.

Guru's, Please let me know if my analysis is wrong.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:15 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Thanked: 3 times

by neha.patni » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:52 am
maihuna 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
[spoiler]Answer:E[/spoiler]

IMO E

can't be A & D Because it should be unlikely to pursue. being is redundant
can't be B because of unnecessary who and being is redundant
shortlisted choice C & E
Can't be C, as the verb for prosecutors is missing leading to uncomplete sentence,

so E
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:53 am
My trick is : Second clause is a "independent clause" So down to D& E.

"to pursue" is the correct idiom

Pick E
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:51 am
reply2spg wrote:I eliminated C because of 'while'. Use while only when 2 simultaneous things are in progress

federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were subject to relatively small penalties can not be ||el processes. Therefore, I eliminated C. - Ron or any other expert please let me know if I am correct
well, there are two major uses of "while":
1) simultaneous events (as you've stated)
2) CONTRAST (e.g., while most of my friends studied for several hours per day, i only studied for half an hour a week.)

in this sentence, though, neither of these possible meanings makes any sense, so the sentence is illogical and therefore wrong.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Locked