Sentence Correction

GMATMadeEasy 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 $100,000 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 $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 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 $100,000 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 $100,000 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 allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of

OA is C.

Question: In an answer choice A, I agree that it uses incorrect idiom "led to passing" but i want to know whether the usage of "allowing" after comma is correct ? I understand that it (allowing) modifies complete preceding clause but I want to know whether it should ALWAYS be applicable to the preceding clause's subject as well ?

GMATMadeEasy wrote:@atulmangal: Thanks. yeah , about including I am aware of. Infact, if you look at the meaning of the word 'include', it is apparent that how it can play a role of modifying whole clause.

My question in the above SC is for "allowing" .. allowing companies to seek bla ba..

Precisely I am asking whether in the answer choice A , "allowing" should be considered as modifying "proliferation" that would be non-sensical though . SO this could be an another reason to destroy A . But I am not sure.

My 2 cents as well : Never do a single SC without using some normal logic/common sense.Think whether meaning makes sense , if not what author would have meant. and then ,of course,normal strategy suggested by everyone. This thing helped me most to improve SC accuracy.

GMATMadeEasy 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 $100,000 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 $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 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 $100,000 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 $100,000 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 allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell

OA is C.

Question: In an answer choice A, I agree that it uses incorrect idiom "led to passing" but i want to know whether the usage of "allowing" after comma is correct ? I understand that it (allowing) modifies complete preceding clause but I want to know whether it should ALWAYS be applicable to the preceding clause's subject as well ?

catseye wrote: The option E has two major problems:

1. The proliferation led to the ACT.
2. Passed and allowing are not parallel.

that is generally how those modifiers work, yes. so that modifier is incorrect for the reason you've cited.

on the other hand, as usual, the "always" (in all caps, no less) doesn't hold -- there are exceptions