Hello Ron,

I am not able to eliminate option A. Is " led to passing " incorrect ? In some sentence , there is 'to +Verbing' constuction vs 'to+verb(first form)'. How to choose between these 2 constuctions ? E.g. I look forward to meeting you , I am interested to meet you. Are there any rules to follow for such sentences ?

Thanks,
Gags

I am with gsingh here, why is A wrong in the first place. What does allowing refers to

Also in choice C the passage in 1999 of Anti-CQ seems awkward

Any comments?

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.

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 seed 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 seed 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 seed 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 of selling


Hi Ron,

I simply crossed out Choices as given below:

a) with the sole intent of selling them later --> intent indicates future so using "later" is redundant
b) with the sole intent that they will sell --> intent indicates future so using "that they will" is redundant
c) with the sole intent of selling --> no redundancy
d) with the sole intent to sell --> no redundancy
e) with the sole intent of selling --> no redundancy

Now we are left with c, d, e

d) was passed in 1999, and it allows companies --> sentence fragment
e) passed in 1999, and it allows companies --> sentence fragment

correct choice is c

Thanks!

nah, you definitely can't make that elimination -- the word "later" is not even part of the underline (note that the other answer choices stop at "to sell" / "selling", so we can conclude that the underline must end BEFORE the words "them later"). therefore, we can conclude that "later" is NOT redundant, since it is actually in the non-underlined part of the sentence.

also, note that "later" is not redundant anyway; it implies that the cyber squatters will actually hold on to the sites for some period of time, i.e., excluding the possibility that they will turn around and sell the sites immediately.

(a) is incorrect because "led to passing" is unidiomatic, and also because it misuses a COMMA -ING modifier.



this is accurate.

alternatively, you could just remember that "intent that CLAUSE" is unidiomatic.



nope, not fragments.
in each case, the part before "and" is a complete sentence, as is the part after "and".

these choices are incorrect because:

* the use of the connector "and" doesn't make sense; it suggests that the two statements are independent and don't have any fundamental connection.
for instance:
there was a great deal of traffic today, and i was late to work --> this sentence actually implies that i was NOT late to work as a result of the traffic. if such a relationship exists, then "and" is an inappropriate connector.

* the use of "led to" is less sensible; "led to" is only idiomatic when it is followed by a noun that refers to an ACTION or EVENT, not a noun referring to a concrete entity.
for instance:
my friendship with george led to the company that we run together --> doesn't make sense (a company is a concrete entity, and so is not something that can be "led to")
my friendship with george led to the founding of the company that we run together --> makes sense

Dear Ron,

for Answer A and B,
is there is any wrong for the subject that "in 1999" modify?

it seems that for A, "in 1999" can modify either "passing" or "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act"?

Also,
For B, "in 1999" seems to modify "the passage" or "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act".

please kindly help!
thanks and best regards.

Why is D incorrect ? Specifically in the differed part? I am having some difficulty on when it is allowed to have 2 parallel verbs in different tenses (past and present participles). Answer D has the same tense which is why i initially thought it was D.

Can someone please explain the previous two posts?

Can someone please explain whether location of the modifier "in 1999" is incorrect in B? I have missed several questions that have had to deal with this.

Can someone please explain whether location of the modifier "in 1999" is incorrect in B? I have missed several questions that have had to deal with this.

OK, but I need to say at the outset that this isn't really where the action is in B. Look to other issues before considering ambiguity, because ambiguous modifiers aren't really much of an issue on the GMAT. Sure, they can be an issue, just not much of an issue.

But there's ambiguous and then there's ambiguous.

One species of ambiguity occurs when a modifier has two acceptable clauses (or a clause and a noun) either of which it might modify, so far as grammar is concerned. If only one of the grammatically acceptable candidates really makes sense, then this species of ambiguity isn't a problem on the GMAT or elsewhere.

Another species of ambiguity occurs when a modifier has one grammatically acceptable noun or clause to modify, but it's not the one that sense tells us it should.

This example is closer to the second sort of ambiguity. Consider this part of the sentence formed by choosing B.

...led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999....

There seem to be three phrases/clauses any one of which in 1999 might modify: in 1999 could be an adverb phrase of time, modifying the verb led; in 1999 might be a noun modifier modifying the action noun passage; in 1999 might be a noun modifier modifying the noun Act.

The first is by far the most appealing; in DATE is almost always an adverb phrase of time.

The second is flat wrong. If in 1999 is a noun modifier, it has to touch the noun it modifies (with exceptions irrelevant to this question).

The third is unlikely. Not only is in DATE is almost always an adverb, but the idiomatic expression is Act of 1999. We use of to modify acts rulings, etc. by assigning them times.

So the grammar of the sentence is pretty clear, in 1999 is an adverb modifying the verb led. But the grammar doesn't match the apparent sense of the original sentence.

I have to tell you gain, though, that the GMAT doesn't often hang a lot on such distinctions.

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.

Hi,

Great summary. Please note that all of the questions in this forum are from the GMAT Prep exam, hence the title of the forum.

Thanks,
Chris

_________________
Chris Brusznicki
MGMAT Instructor
Chicago, IL