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

Redeem

the cybersquatters

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

the cybersquatters

by simone88 » Sun May 06, 2012 4:25 am
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 $100000 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 $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.
B the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 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 $100000 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 $100000 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 it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell
Last edited by simone88 on Sun May 06, 2012 4:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:08 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:4 members

by confuse mind » Sun May 06, 2012 4:42 am
SC question, please take it to the proper head along with underlining.

IMO - C
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Sun May 06, 2012 4:48 am
I choosed C as asnwer. The reasons for that are:
better passage than passing. I don't know why, it just sounds me like that
in they will sell (B-E) the tense, to me, is wrong because it is not a fact that someone will sell but it is an intention
in they will sell anyway it is not clear whom they refer to
in and it allows (D-E) it is not clear whom it refers to
Is it all right so far? in some forums some say there were these following errors:
allowing (in A) modifies the subject of the preceding clause, i.e passing, rather than the act itself. Is it true that present particle-ing modifies the subject of the preceding clause?
which in B modifies 1999 rather than the act.
are these really other errors? then:
in D is which was passed in 1999, and it allows correct? and in E is passed in 1999, and it allows grammatically correct?
are there other errors?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Sun May 06, 2012 4:49 am
confuse mind wrote:SC question, please take it to the proper head along with underlining.

IMO - C
yeas that's right
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:08 am
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:610

by scholardream » Sun May 06, 2012 5:16 pm
It can't be C as 'the passage' is not the right noun.
A is wrong due to the idiom 'intent of', we have intent to do sth or intent on doing sth
D is the correct answer
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Sun May 06, 2012 7:48 pm
(C) is indeed the correct answer.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Mon May 07, 2012 12:46 am
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 $100000 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 $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.
B the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 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 $100000 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 $100000 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 it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell[/quote]

IMO:C
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Mon May 07, 2012 12:47 am
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 $100000 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 $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.
B the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 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 $100000 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 $100000 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 it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell[/quote]

IMO:C
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 » Mon May 07, 2012 4:09 am
simone88 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 $100000 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 $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.
B the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 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 $100000 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 $100000 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 it allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell
A:
The proliferation led to passing the Act, allowing companies to seek damages.
Here, it is not clear who or what is passing the act.
Generally, COMMA + VERBing refers to the subject of the preceding clause. Thus, the implication here is that the PROLIFERATION was allowing companies to seek damages -- not the intended meaning.
Eliminate A.

In B, they lacks a clear antecedent.
Also, which seems to refer to 1999, implying that the year itself allows companies to seek damages. Eliminate B.

D and E:
The proliferation led to the Act.
Not the intended meaning: the proliferation led not to the ACT itself but to the PASSAGE of the Act.
Also, led to the Act and passed in 1999 incorrectly imply that there were two distinct events. Not so. The intended meaning is that the events were concurrent: The proliferation LED to the PASSAGE in 1999 of the Act.
Also, it lacks a clear antecedent.
In E, they lacks a clear antecedent.

Eliminate D and E.

The correct answer is C.
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
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Tue May 08, 2012 1:39 am
GMATGuruNY wrote: Also, led to the Act and passed in 1999 incorrectly imply that there were two distinct events. Not so. The intended meaning is that the events were concurrent: The proliferation LED to the PASSAGE in 1999 of the Act.
But, to me, the construction of E is
"(The proliferation led to the act, passed in 1999) & it allows"
and not
"(the proliferation let to the act), (passed in 1999) & it allows"

So "passed in 1999" is a subordinate of "the proliferation led" and not another event along wiht "it allows" and, to me, itself is correct.
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 » Tue May 08, 2012 9:18 am
simone88 wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: Also, led to the Act and passed in 1999 incorrectly imply that there were two distinct events. Not so. The intended meaning is that the events were concurrent: The proliferation LED to the PASSAGE in 1999 of the Act.
But, to me, the construction of E is
"(The proliferation led to the act, passed in 1999) & it allows"
and not
"(the proliferation let to the act), (passed in 1999) & it allows"

So "passed in 1999" is a subordinate of "the proliferation led" and not another event along wiht "it allows" and, to me, itself is correct.
A modifier set off by commas is NON-ESSENTIAL, implying that the modifier can be removed WITHOUT CHANGING THE BASIC MEANING of the sentence.
If remove passed in 1999 -- the non-essential modifier in E --we get:

The proliferation led to the Act, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages.

There are several issues here:
The proliferation led not to the Act itself but to the PASSAGE of the act.
It (subject pronoun) seems to refer to proliferation (the subject of the preceding clause), implying that the PROLIFERATION allows companies to seek damages.
The intended meaning of the sentence is that the proliferation of so-called cybersquatters led to a particular event that took place in 1999: the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Information Act.
What happened in 1999 is ESSENTIAL to the meaning of the sentence. Thus, the non-essential modifier in E (passed in 1999) does not convey the intended meaning.
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
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:07 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by sui generis » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:53 am
Choice B: 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 the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell
@GMATGuruNY: In choice B above can't 'they' refer to people ? What does the two 'those' (highlighted in red) refer to ?
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1