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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
Live EA class + 6 months of EA OnDemand
  • Expert-led weekly online sessions
  • EA Masterclass access between classes
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Piracy

Expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:55 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 5 times
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
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:27 amFollowed by: 7 members
Thanked: 48 times

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
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
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
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pmFollowed by: 34 members
Thanked: 448 times
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
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
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
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1