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

Redeem

Piracy

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:55 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Piracy

by metallicafan » Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:58 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

OA is ___E.__

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!
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:27 am
Thanked: 48 times
Followed by:7 members

by vinay1983 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:47 am
metallicafan 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 Being is wrong usage
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being Being is wrong usage
C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were We need some conclusion to follow, unless there is no conclusion "until" remains hanging!
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being Here therefore usage is correct since we need to conclude the argument. Usage of semi colon is appropriate here. We need to show dependency, hence semi colon followed by therefore, however etc is correct(not a usual case though) being usage is wrong
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were Good option. Here as for option D, semi colon and therefore usage show dependency on the previous part of the sentence and "offenders were" is correct usage


OA is ___E.__

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!
On to your queries

"With" here changes the meaning and implies "charged with prosecutors" you need to charge with felony or something

In option E, as I mentioned this" semicolon and therefore usage in not common, but is used in conjunction with although, however etc to show some dependency or conclusion or contrast.


Hope it helps!
You can, for example never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:00 am
Location: West Virginia
Thanked: 9 times

by Java_85 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:33 am
IMO E is the only possible answer.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:59 am
[A]: INCORRECT; its a run-on sentence.. the second part of the sentence should be seperated by semi-colon
: INCORRECT; "being" cannot be used here.
[C]: INCORRECT; its a run-on sentence.. the second part of the sentence should be seperated by semi-colon
[D]: INCORRECT; "being" cannot be used here.
[E]: CORRECT

Regarding your queries, ";" is when you want to connect two connected sentences which are independent clauses. Consider this sentence, if this had "and" rather than ";" then the meaning of this sentence would have been totally insane. In the Sentence the second half part "federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue ......." is acting as a consequence of the first part. So, the use of therefore is justifiable

The use of "with" will affect the meaning of the sentence. The Second half of the sentence will not be acting as a consequence of the first part.
R A H U L
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:51 pm
metallicafan wrote: In B, does "with" change the meaning of the sentence?, is it ilogical?
In the vast majority of cases, COMMA + with serves to modify the preceding VERB, explaining HOW the preceding verb took place.
Official examples:

The diet of the ordinary Greek in classical times WAS largely vegetarian -- vegetables, fresh cheese, oatmeal, and meal cakes, WITH meat as a rarity.
HOW was the diet largely vegetarian?
WITH meat as a rarity.

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys SLEEPING on the branches, WITH arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.
HOW were the monkeys sleeping?
WITH arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

In answer choice B above, the with-modifier is MISUSED:
A first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers
Here, the with-modifier does not serve to explain HOW a first-time charge was merely a misdemeanor charge:
HOW was a first-time charge merely a misdemeanor charge?
WITH federal prosecutors.
Doesn't work.
Eliminate B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1