The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who

[RonPurewal]

Yes.

[thanghnvn]

1. 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 seed 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 allowing companies to seek up to $100000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling


the main point here is the phrase "lead to Act" and "lead to the passage".

I see that both the followings is correct
concrete noun+lead+concrete noun
the road leading to the door is good
abstract noun+lead+abstract noun
the proliferation leads to the passage

because the focus of sc is the meaning relation between entities in the sentence, sc can test the meaning relation between subject and subject complement, verb and verb complement, object and object complement. many sc question test those relations. here in this question, sc tests meaning relation between subject and object of a verb.

of course, we can not make above analysis for the verb "lead" in the test room because this analysis takes at leat half hour. but, we can make the analyse before we are in the test room so that in the test room we can use intuition, our ear, to choose the correct answer with a confidence.

do you agree with me?

[RonPurewal]

i don't really understand what you are asking.

if you read the original sentence slowly and carefully enough, you should understand very clearly-- and very quickly-- that the proliferation of xxxx is the thing that led to the passage of a law.

[michail.palagaschwili]

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.

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

I could eliminate answer choices B,D and E, but was stuck between A and C. When we take out the modifier of cybersquatters, our sentence takes the following structure:

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters led to...

The Subject is here PROLIFERATION, after it we have and ING-Modifier allowing, which actually must make sense with the subject [PROLIFERATION] of the preceding clause, but it doesn't do so. It would make only sense if "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" were the subject of the preceding clause. Would it be correct to eliminate this answer choice based on this issue ?

Additionally, I preffered passage over passing.

[RonPurewal]

Would it be correct to eliminate this answer choice based on this issue ?

yes.

[Crisc419]

(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.

The B choice is : 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 $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell them later.

The conclusion i deduce from the posts here is that "in 1999" is not a modifier of " the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act "(in 1999 is the modifier of "the passage"), so the "which" cannot jump to modify " the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act " and must modify "1999" .

If i am wrong, please correct me. Thanks.

Cris

[RonPurewal]

yes, that's a correct understanding. nice.

[Crisc419]

yes, that's a correct understanding. nice.

Many, many thanks, Ron.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[yangfan0307]

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

that's a perceptive question, but, no -- this isn't an issue of parallelism.
rather, this is an issue of idiomatic usage (idiom).

the only verbal form that can follow "hopes of" is the -ING form.

"intent of VERBing" is clearly a correct form -- we can be 100% sure of that, since it appears in the correct answer -- but i'm not sure about "intent to sell", since there are other criteria on which choice (c) can be eliminated. since there are several idioms that are correct in more than one form, i would not jump to the conclusion that this alternate form is incorrect.

Hi Ron,

I have a question regarding intent of vs. intent to.
You explained this problem in" Thursday with Ron" and mentioned that :

intent to verb = not OK
intent of verbing = OK

but I have found in Manhattan 5th edtion, P161 Idioms：

Right: I went with the INTENT (or INTENTION) OF LEAVING soon.
Right: I went with the INTENT TO LEAVE soon.
Suspect: I went with the INTENT THAT I WOULD LEAVE soon.

I am confused with the idiom use of intent now. Is "intent to" right or not? Can you please tell which explanation is the right one?
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

i would never pick a choice containing "intent to ____".