The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who re

[elevinty]

thanks ron

[jnelson0612]

Thanks Ron!

[ranjeet1975]

I read somewhere that "led to passing" is an incorrect idiom?

Please guide me as I could not find the reason.

Ron has explained somewhere that

"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

Here also 'passing' is an action. Is it not?

[RonPurewal]

I read somewhere that "led to passing" is an incorrect idiom?

Please guide me as I could not find the reason.

because this problem presents a split between "passing" and "passage", it is covered by the following principle:
post50089.html#p50089

[AmunaGmat]

Am I correct to think that besides the incorrect 'passing' in A, 'allowing companies to seek bla ba bla', means that the passing of the law allowed companies to seek bla bla bla, whereas the intended meaning of the sentence should be the Act allowed companies to seek bla bla bla.

I elimited choice A based on that.

Cheers!!!

[RonPurewal]

Am I correct to think that besides the incorrect 'passing' in A, 'allowing companies to seek bla ba bla', means that the passing of the law allowed companies to seek bla bla bla, whereas the intended meaning of the sentence should be the Act allowed companies to seek bla bla bla.

I elimited choice A based on that.

Cheers!!!

you've reached the correct basic conclusion here -- namely, that the modifier is ill placed -- but you've misidentified what it does (incorrectly) modify.
the modifier has the form comma + -ING, so it actually modifies the action of the preceding clause. in this case, that action would be "led to passing".
you still wind up with a modifier that doesn't make sense.

[nonameee]

Would (A) be correct if you used 'the' before passing:

... led to the passing of the Pact ....

?

Also, I've never heard of the usage 'the passage of some Act'. I've always thought that it is 'passing of some Act'.

Thank you.

[tim]

"The passage" of a law is correct usage. In American English, when you talk of "the passing" of something, it usually refers to someone who has died..

[nonameee]

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[thanghnvn]

Ron, Manhantan experts,

E is wrong just because it change the original meaning when the original meaning is righ.

is that right?

There is no other reasons for which E is wrong.

[tim]

every single word you change, in any sentence ever, changes the meaning. please don't fall into the trap of assuming you have to adhere to the meaning of the original. not only is grammar far more important than meaning, but if the original sentence is wrong then you HAVE to change the meaning, even if only slightly..

Ron already explained why E is wrong; please refer to his explanation..

[thanghnvn]

Thank Ron for the explanation of the choice E.

when we face 2 choices which are both grammartical and logic, we eliminate the choice which is farther from the meaning of the original choices.

Is above thinking correct? pls, confirm.

for example, if we face:

A. I learn English well so that I can take a good MBA.
B. I learn English well, so I can take a good MBA.
in this case, choice B is wrong because B change the meaning of choice A though choice B is correct grammatically and logically.

if we face
A. I learn English well, so I can take a good MBA.
B. I learn English well so that I can take a good MBA.
in this case, though B is grammartical and logic, it is wrong because it change the original sentence.

the situation above is similar to the situation of choice C and E in the question posted.

is my thinking correct ?

[jnelson0612]

Thank Ron for the explanation of the choice E.

when we face 2 choices which are both grammartical and logic, we eliminate the choice which is farther from the meaning of the original choices.

Is above thinking correct? pls, confirm.

for example, if we face:

A. I learn English well so that I can take a good MBA.
B. I learn English well, so I can take a good MBA.
in this case, choice B is wrong because B change the meaning of choice A though choice B is correct grammatically and logically.

if we face
A. I learn English well, so I can take a good MBA.
B. I learn English well so that I can take a good MBA.
in this case, though B is grammartical and logic, it is wrong because it change the original sentence.

the situation above is similar to the situation of choice C and E in the question posted.

is my thinking correct ?

I agree that if both choices are grammatically correct and make logical sense that you would go with the answer that is closer to the original meaning of the sentence.

Unfortunately none of those sentences is grammatically correct. We would not say that a person "takes" a good MBA. You would also want to use a different verb tense. A correct sentence would say something such as: "I have learned English so I that I can attend (or complete) a good MBA program".

However, your overall point is valid. If two answers are grammatically and logically correct you will be wise to go with the one that preserves the original meaning.

[thanghnvn]

choice a: 'passing' is a dangling modifier. in other words, we don't know the agent of this action (we don't know who passed the act). that's unacceptable; if no agent is specified, we need a noun form like 'the passage'.

choice b: the relative pronoun 'which' apparently refers to the year 1999. 'the sole intent that they will sell' is incorrect idiomatic usage.

choice c (= correct answer):
- the phrase 'in 1999' is moved out of the way, allowing the relative pronoun which to be correctly placed next to the ACCPA.
- the proper noun form 'the passage' is used, correctly indicating the specific event referenced.
- the correct idiom is used ('with the sole intent of selling').

choice d: the event referenced is the passage of the act, as conveyed in the original (you can't change this meaning: for all we know, the act was written years earlier, but not passed until all the squatters came around). poor parallelism ('and it allows' is out of place). 'intent to sell' is dubious idiomatic usage.

choice e: as in d, you have to say that the presence of squatters led to the passage of the act, not to the act itself (you can't change the meaning of the sentence unless it's nonsense). also, putting 'passed in 1999 and allowing companies to...', while not exactly nonparallel, is just plain weird: you're putting one past event and one current condition in parallel. you shouldn't use parallelism for events that aren't logically parallel.

Great , Ron, as usual.

if noun exists, the use of noun or doing depends on wheather the action is general or action is done by specific agent in the sentence, respectively.

if there is no noun, doing of course is used to show general action or action by specific agent. HOwever I have question.

do we use "doing of" for general action???

proliferation of persons willing to take mba leads to the learning of gmat.

or proliferation of persons willing to take mba leads to the learning gmat.

which is correct? and why.

I do not thing gmat test this point. HOwever it is relevant.

Yes, or No, pls, help