The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who

[Saurabh Malpani]

Both the questions are from GMAT Prep.

My question for the 1st question is that in Option E why "passed in 1999 and allowing companies "--Not parallel whereas in Question 2 option C--- found in the Phillipines and resembling Parallel.

Can you please thrown light on the questions.

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

2. First discovered more than 30 years ago, Lina's sunbird, a four-and-a-half-inch animal found in the Phillipines and that resembles a hummingbird, has shimmering metallic colors on its head; a brilliant orange patch, bordered with red tufts, in the center of its breast; and a red eye.

a. Same as above
b. found in the Phillipines and that, resembling
c. found in the Phillipines and resembling
d. that is found in the Phillipines and it resembles
e. that is found in the Phillipines, resembling

Thanks
Saurabh Malpani[/u]

[JadranLee]

Hi Saurabh,

I will gladly post an explanation of this issue tomorrow, but first I'd like you to say why you think the mistake in (E) for the first problem has to do with parallelism. (I think it's easier to understand the mistake in (E) in another way.)

-Jad

[Saurabh Malpani]

Hi Jad,

Well I don't know why E is wrong because I chose E but it was not the correct answer. So basically that's what I need to understand that what's wrong with E.

Please Help.

Thanks
Saurabh Malpani

Hi Saurabh,

I will gladly post an explanation of this issue tomorrow, but first I'd like you to say why you think the mistake in (E) for the first problem has to do with parallelism. (I think it's easier to understand the mistake in (E) in another way.)

-Jad

[Saurabh Malpani]

Hello,

I know technically I should start a new thread but I thought that I will just add the problem here because the problem tests the same principle.

The growth of the railroads led to the abolition of local times, which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing from city to city, and to the establishment of regional times.

(A) which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing
(B) which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and which differed
(C) which were determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing
(D) determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differed
(E) determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing

Thanks
Saurabh Malpani

[JadranLee]

Hi Saurabh,

I assume the last problem comes also from GMAT Prep - am I right?

Let's consider two correct sentences and one wrong sentence:

(1) The growth of the railroads led to the abolition of local times, determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing from city to city, and to the establishment of regional times. (E from your last question; correct)

(2) First discovered more than 30 years ago, Lina's sunbird, a four-and-a-half-inch animal found in the Philippines and resembling a hummingbird, has shimmering metallic colors on its head; a brilliant orange patch, bordered with red tufts, in the center of its breast; and a red eye. (C from your 2nd question; correct)

(3) 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 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 them later. (E from your 1st question; wrong)

In each case we have a boldface noun followed by, and modified by, two underlined participial phrases. The participial phrases in each example follow a pattern -

(1) the first participial phrase begins with a past participle ("determined", "found", or "passed")
(2) the word "and" joins the first participial phrase to the second participial phrase
(3) the second participial phrase begins with a present participle ("differing", "resembling", or "allowing")

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this type of construction. The GMAT is happy to admit two participial phrases as parallel, even when the first begins with a past participle and the second begins with a present participle.

So what's wrong with sentence (3) in my list above? It's really a problem of logic rather than of parallelism. The sentence is telling us that "The proliferation...led to" something. Well, what did the proliferation lead to? It led to the passage of the Act. It sounds odd and somewhat illogical to simply say that the proliferation led to the Act, particularly if you then follow the word "Act" with a descriptive phrase that essentially says "oh, by the way, the act was passed in 1999". Why not make the point more directly by saying, as in answer choice C, that the proliferation led to "the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act".

-Jad

[Saurabh Malpani]

Jad,

Absolutely great. I was thinking on the same lines though I was not sure.

Thank you!! Very Very ( I know Very very is wrong as per english standards Much!!!!

I think I will have to come to you for Private Tutoring!!!

Saurabh Malpani

[JadranLee]

You're most welcome, Saurabh.

-Jad

[guest]

as per my understanding so far i was following rule:

Noun + preposition + object, which.....
in such case 'which' preceded with comma refers to the noun and not to the object.
and so far i had success while solving sc problems with this rule but after seeing above post i am in confusion.
Because in above example of 'proliferation' rule does not fit.


please guide me.



l

[vaibhav]

i have read this post http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/use ... t1766.html
but still i have doubt .....

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.

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

---IF which here refers to Act then how we will make sentence which will refer to the passage in 1999 if want to convey something about the passage.
---I follow the rule [noun + preposition + object,which] in which 'which' refers to noun and not to object.
Ex: Burger of America,which is $4 ,is my favourite dish.
Now as per your saying which should refer to America but her i want to make it refer to Burger.
If i am wrong then please tell me how to refer to burger in this example.
Or better if you could tell me how to distinguish between such scenarios then it will be a great help

[RonPurewal]

---IF which here refers to Act then how we will make sentence which will refer to the passage in 1999 if want to convey something about the passage.

i'm sorry; i don't really understand your question.

---I follow the rule [noun + preposition + object,which] in which 'which' refers to noun and not to object.

don't follow this rule, because, in most cases, it's wrong.
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... html#11320

that is the secondary interpretation, only to be used if ALL of the choices contain a nonsense primary interpretation (the noun next to the modifier).

If i am wrong then please tell me how to refer to burger in this example.

just rearrange the sentence so that "burger" comes before the modifier.
such rearrangement can sometimes be difficult, but it's quite easy in this particular instance: in america, a hamburger, which costs $4, ...

[shobuj40]

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.

i think :
the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999 -is moer clear than-the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

but other error makes the option B incorrect and Option C best of the 5

pls clarify my point ?

Thanks in advance

[JonathanSchneider]

Well, clarity is an issue that is not really optional on this test. You HAVE to have a clear response. Go with grammar first, of course, only because those errors are easier to spot/decide. But I think both of the options that you list here are equally clear. Of course, in these situations, you can ask yourself: how else might we interpret these phrasings? If a phrasing is ambiguous, then it is unclear. Here, I cannot see a different interpretation - can you?

[chiraag.bhadana]

Hi Jonathan,

Can you indicate why option C is better than option B?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Jonathan,

Can you indicate why option C is better than option B?

in (b):

* "the intent that they will..." is unidiomatic.

* the "which" erroneously refers to "1999".

[rajinikanth]

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