The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
Can we split based on "sole intent of selling" as its parallel with "in hopes of reselling" and eliminate B, D and E?
Thanks,
Raj

no. that's not a parallel structure (there are a billion zillion words in between those things, which also aren't connected by any sort of parallel marker).
this is really just a function of idioms. for instance, if "hopes of reselling" could be replaced with "plans to resell", then the second part would still have to be "intent of selling" (because "intent to sell" isn't idiomatic).

[Doe007]

I am in complete agreement with the answer choice C as it does not have any grammatical error. However, I am just confused about the term "seed up" in the first three choices -- I found the same term included in those three choices in a few other GMAT related sites. Is this a typo? [Option D and E mention "seek up" and not "seed up".] It will be great if somebody can provide information on this.

[jlucero]

I am in complete agreement with the answer choice C as it does not have any grammatical error. However, I am just confused about the term "seed up" in the first three choices -- I found the same term included in those three choices in a few other GMAT related sites. Is this a typo? [Option D and E mention "seek up" and not "seed up".] It will be great if somebody can provide information on this.

I'd bet my, or better yet, someone else's life that people copy and paste the same problem they find to different forums and that this is just a typo that's been passed along.

Also, I see "seek" in the five answer choices in the original posting.

[Doe007]

Thank you, Joe, for your reply. Now I can see that somebody corrected the typo "seed up" from the first 3 choices (after my last poster in this forum), but forgot to correct the original sentence (I mean, the question). :)

[jlucero]

No problemo.

[jyothi h]

FYI, this is a GMAT Prep question and the OA is C.
I agree with Ron's analyses of different answer choices. To sum it up:
> "and" cannot be used to portray cause and effect relationships(eliminated D and E).
> The proliferation ....led to the passage of .... is correct. Proliferation is an action noun and thus it cant parallel a concrete noun(the anti cybersquatting consumer protection act).
> Choices A,B,C are left; B is incorrect because of the following order of words:
in 1999, which (which typically describes the words immediately preceding it)
A is incorrect : led to passing is unidiomatic; led to the passage is the correct construction.
C is the correct answer.

I believe , D and E , are wrong for one more reason . There is meaning change when u say "led to The ACT ", as opposed to "led to the passage of the act" .... It is correct to say " the act was passed in 1999" , i.e adheres to the intended meaning . Not quiet sure if it is right to rule these options out based on this issue.
I eliminated D and E , for these issues. Can anyone confirm on this ?

[RonPurewal]

I believe , D and E , are wrong for one more reason . There is meaning change when u say "led to The ACT ", as opposed to "led to the passage of the act" .... It is correct to say " the act was passed in 1999" , i.e adheres to the intended meaning . Not quiet sure if it is right to rule these options out based on this issue.
I eliminated D and E , for these issues. Can anyone confirm on this ?

i would agree with this elimination, if only because (from my experience as a writer) i would restrict the use of "led to..." to abstractions, actions, or processes, and not concrete entities (such as an Act).
e.g.,
The couple's sole encounter led to a baby --> nope
The couple's sole encounter led to the conception of a baby --> ok
... because "a baby" is concrete, but "the conception" is an abstraction/event/action.

same thing with "the passage of the Act" (abstraction/event/action) vs. "the Act" (concrete entity).

as you can tell, this is a pretty subtle difference; i'm only even vaguely aware of it because i have loads of experience as a writer.

[mcmebk]

Dear Instructors:

Between B & C:

(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

One of the reasons that has been referred to eliminate this option is that "which" incorrectly modifies 1999, instead of the intended "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", it confuses me because in MANHATTAN GMAT GUIDE, there are several situations when noun modifiers does not have to touch the noun, in particular:

1. A "mission-critical modifier falls between", or
2. A very short predict falls between, shifting a very long modifier back.

It seems to me that in B, it either applies to rule 1 or 2, thus the "which" can actually modify the "...ACT".

(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

I immediately eliminated correct answer C because the modifier in 1999 looks very strange to me. I have made mistakes on several questions when a time frame modifier is put in a wrong place and can be ambiguous about which object it modifies. Are there any TAKE AWAY for such things?

Thank you all.

Best wishes.

[mcmebk]

Dear Instructors:

Between B & C:

(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

One of the reasons that has been referred to eliminate this option is that "which" incorrectly modifies 1999, instead of the intended "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", it confuses me because in MANHATTAN GMAT GUIDE, there are several situations when noun modifiers does not have to touch the noun, in particular:

1. A "mission-critical modifier falls between", or
2. A very short predict falls between, shifting a very long modifier back.

It seems to me that in B, it either applies to rule 1 or 2, thus the "which" can actually modify the "...ACT".

(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

I immediately eliminated correct answer C because the modifier in 1999 looks very strange to me. I have made mistakes on several questions when a time frame modifier is put in a wrong place and can be ambiguous about which object it modifies. Are there any TAKE AWAY for such things?

Thank you all.

Best wishes.

[RonPurewal]

(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

there's no way you can get "which" to describe the Act here, no matter how much you twist the words.
here's the way you'd "block out" that construction:
the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999
*NOT*
the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999

for "which" to describe the Act, you'd have to parse the sentence in the second way; that's a nonsense interpretation.

luckily, you don't have to think that hard, because you can use a simpler criterion: pick the choice that places the modifier closest to the stuff it's supposed to describe.
the "which" stuff should describe the Act, and "in 1999" describes the passage of the Act.
in choice (c) both of these descriptions are ideally placed, directly adjacent to the stuff they're supposed to describe.

(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

I immediately eliminated correct answer C because the modifier in 1999 looks very strange to me.

well, then, looks like it's time to recalibrate your understanding of those modifiers.

I have made mistakes on several questions when a time frame modifier is put in a wrong place and can be ambiguous about which object it modifies. Are there any TAKE AWAY for such things?

yes, and it's a very simple one: again, pick the choice that places the modifier closest to the stuff it's supposed to describe.

what happened in 1999?
the passage of the law happened in 1999.
therefore, "in 1999" should be placed as close as possible to "the passage". the placement in this choice is ideal.

if you found the placement of this modifier "strange", then you are probably using your sense of spoken english to judge that placement.
if so, that's a terrible idea. spoken english and written english are two different languages; there are almost no modifiers that are used identically in both.

[mcmebk]

(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

there's no way you can get "which" to describe the Act here, no matter how much you twist the words.
here's the way you'd "block out" that construction:
the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999
*NOT*
the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999

for "which" to describe the Act, you'd have to parse the sentence in the second way; that's a nonsense interpretation.

luckily, you don't have to think that hard, because you can use a simpler criterion: pick the choice that places the modifier closest to the stuff it's supposed to describe.
the "which" stuff should describe the Act, and "in 1999" describes the passage of the Act.
in choice (c) both of these descriptions are ideally placed, directly adjacent to the stuff they're supposed to describe.

(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

I immediately eliminated correct answer C because the modifier in 1999 looks very strange to me.

well, then, looks like it's time to recalibrate your understanding of those modifiers.

I have made mistakes on several questions when a time frame modifier is put in a wrong place and can be ambiguous about which object it modifies. Are there any TAKE AWAY for such things?

yes, and it's a very simple one: again, pick the choice that places the modifier closest to the stuff it's supposed to describe.

what happened in 1999?
the passage of the law happened in 1999.
therefore, "in 1999" should be placed as close as possible to "the passage". the placement in this choice is ideal.

if you found the placement of this modifier "strange", then you are probably using your sense of spoken english to judge that placement.
if so, that's a terrible idea. spoken english and written english are two different languages; there are almost no modifiers that are used identically in both.

Thank you so much Ron!

[RonPurewal]

sure thing.

[calm.jing]

Dear instructors,

I've read all the posts, and still have a question about A and E. I know why they are wrong, but I was wondering if the allowing used in A and E are correct?

I think the "allowing" in A is an adverbial modifier and modifies "The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters... led to ..." (the entire sentence). It indicates the result of the action.
And in E, "allowing" is an attributive phrase and modifies "the act". It is parallel to "passed" and tells the content of "the act."

Correct me if I am wrong. :)
Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

Dear instructors,

I've read all the posts, and still have a question about A and E. I know why they are wrong, but I was wondering if the allowing used in A and E are correct?

I think the "allowing" in A is an adverbial modifier and modifies "The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters... led to ..." (the entire sentence). It indicates the result of the action.
And in E, "allowing" is an attributive phrase and modifies "the act". It is parallel to "passed" and tells the content of "the act."

Correct me if I am wrong. :)
Thanks in advance!

I agree with this analysis.

[calm.jing]

Dear instructors,

I've read all the posts, and still have a question about A and E. I know why they are wrong, but I was wondering if the allowing used in A and E are correct?

I think the "allowing" in A is an adverbial modifier and modifies "The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters... led to ..." (the entire sentence). It indicates the result of the action.
And in E, "allowing" is an attributive phrase and modifies "the act". It is parallel to "passed" and tells the content of "the act."

Correct me if I am wrong. :)
Thanks in advance!

I agree with this analysis.

Thanks Ron!
So the "allowing" in A and E are both fine. A and E are just wrong for other reasons?