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!
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Piracy
This topic has expert replies
-
metallicafan
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:55 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:3 members
-
vinay1983
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:27 am
- Thanked: 48 times
- Followed by:7 members
On to your queriesmetallicafan 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!
"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!
-
theCodeToGMAT
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
- Thanked: 448 times
- Followed by:34 members
- GMAT Score:650
[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.
: 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
-
GMATGuruNY
- 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
In the vast majority of cases, COMMA + with serves to modify the preceding VERB, explaining HOW the preceding verb took place.metallicafan wrote: In B, does "with" change the meaning of the sentence?, is it ilogical?
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
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
