The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who re

[RonPurewal]

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

the problem here is that "the VERBing..." suggests a general, abstract phenomenon, unless the agent of that action is actually specified.
so, this sentence doesn't work, because it doesn't imply that the potential mba students are doing the learning.

more generally, though, i would suggest that you accumulate some more familiarity with the language before trying to construct more examples.
it's a good thing that you want to create your own examples -- but the problem is that your examples have lots of other structural problems, making them hard to evaluate constructively.

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

"the VERBing OBJECT" is never a valid construction.

[quoteI do not thing gmat test this point. HOwever it is relevant.
[/quote]

hmm?
this is a gmat forum. if something is not tested on the gmat, then, by definition, it's irrelevant.

[thanghnvn]

Thank YOu Ron, I will try to write correctly.

the matter I want to say is that

normally , the noun of doing shows the general action. For example, "attempt" is used to show general action.

there is some verbs which have no noun . for example, the verb "to learn" has no noun such as "learnation".

for those verbs, if I want to refer to general action, what I will use, "doing" or "doing of" . for example

learning of gmat is good

learning gmat is good

which sentence is good and which is not good.

I want to show another example.

suppose that 3 years after Havard opened its business school, a person named X had finished his English course. Mr.X did not open the business school. This is the situation I want to convey. which of the following sentence is good to convey the above meaning ?

3 years after opening OF Havard Business school, Mr. X had finished his English course.

3 years after opening Havard Business school, Mr X had finished his English cours

iF Mr. X opened the Havard business school, and 3 years after this opening, he had finished his English course, How is this situation expressed? which one of the 2 above sentences dose express this idea ?

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

one thing you should notice here is that the dedicated noun forms generally have "the" in front of them. (the exam doesn't test the usage of "the", but it's another useful clue in figuring out what kind of construction you're dealing with.)

3 years after the opening OF Havard Business school, Mr. X had finished his English course.

this would mean that mr. X finished the course 3 years after the school began its operations. no relationship is implied by this sentence -- although, presumably, this sentence would have to be written within some sort of larger context in which these two events were, somehow, related.

3 years after opening Havard Business school, Mr X had finished his English course

this means he actually opened the school himself.

[thanghnvn]

Great, thank you Ron,

so, "doing of" refers to general action in case the noun of action dose not exist. in this case, "doing of" is similar to "action noun" such as "attemp"

"doing+object" is used when the doer of "doing" is clear from context.

is my thinking correct?

I think gmat dose not test us this point. gmat only test us the split between and "possesive +doing" and action noun.

[jlucero]

No. The key difference b/w these two phrases is not the "of", it's the "the".

3 years after the opening of Havard Business school, Mr. X had finished his English course.

3 years after (his (implied))opening Havard Business school, Mr X had finished his English cours

[mcmebk]

Hi instructors:

I would like to understand better about the usage of "those" in the correct answer.

Ron said this/these can never be used standalone, and that/those alone can be used when in a comparative structure:

I have two plans and this/that is one of them - Wrong
The protein in rice is higher than that in wheat - Correct.

But in this question, "those" is not used in a comparative structure, can anyone please explain to me why it is acceptable?

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

But in this question, "those" is not used in a comparative structure, can anyone please explain to me why it is acceptable?

Thanks.

When "those who..." is used to mean "people who...", it's an acceptable structure.

You shouldn't even think of "those" as a pronoun in this case -- just think of it as a noun that's equivalent to "people".

[info123talk]

Hi,

(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $10,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell

As per explanation which here refers to 1999. But, which can refer to noun+prepo.+noun. can't 1999(time) be referred as noun here and thus which referring to "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999"?

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $10,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell

As per explanation which here refers to 1999. But, which can refer to noun+prepo.+noun. can't 1999(time) be referred as noun here and thus which referring to "Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999"?

No, because that's not a construction that exists in the sentence.

The words you're looking at are ...
the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999
... because the whole pink thing was the thing that happened in 1999.
So,
1/ you can keep the whole pink thing, or
2/ you can dump the modifier within the pink thing, and keep the passage in 1999.

You can't keep just "the Act in 1999", because you can't keep the pink modifier without keeping the pink noun ("passage").

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

if you see a split between
* an -ING form that's used as a noun, and
* a dedicated noun form of the same action,
then ALWAYS pick the dedicated noun form.

Hi, Ron, I think the question in the following link is an exception for the rule.

[url] post60923.html#p60923
[/url]

I think the rule is to choose the best expression according to the need of the sentence.

Am I right?

Thanks in advance!

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

choice d: 'intent to sell' is dubious idiomatic usage.

Hi, Ron, I checked the Sentence Correction GMAT Strategy Guide, Fifth Edition page 161, Chapter 9, and I found the following:

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

SUSPECT:
I went with the INTENT THAT I WOULD LEAVE soon.

So I am confusing. Please help.

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

if the gmat people are consistent, it's actually not wrong at all. there is an o.g. problem (#19, i believe) with this exact construction, involving one past participle (spawned) and one present participle (extending).
as a native speaker of english and a writer, i find that construction fatally awkward while i don't see the same degree of awkwardness in og#19, but there's no tangible way to explain that.

hi, Ron, I checked it is og#41 (12th edition) and it disappeared in the 13th og.

However, I noticed that in the correct sentence for og12#42, there is NO comma between the noun (interwoven filigree) that is modified and the modifiers (spawned and extending). While in this sentence, there IS a comma between them.

I think it is wrong to use the construction "noun+comma+v-ed+and+v-ing" when there is a sentence before it, due to different functions of v-ed and v-ing. V-ed is used to modify the noun before comma. However, v-ing is used to modify the preceding clause before comma and its "logic subject" is the subject of the preceding clause.

However, if there is no sentence before the construction but a noun (or anything else), I think it will be ok. Because v-ing is limited to the only possibility to modify the noun (or anything else)

Please evaluate my thought. Thanks Ron!

[RonPurewal]

I'm having a hard time following what you wrote; without examples, it's a bit too abstract for me.
Could you please provide examples? They don't have to be perfectly written; they just have to help me put a finger on what you're asking here.

Thanks.

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

I'm having a hard time following what you wrote; without examples, it's a bit too abstract for me.
Could you please provide examples? They don't have to be perfectly written; they just have to help me put a finger on what you're asking here.

Thanks.

Sorry Ron, let me make it more clear.
If we choose E, then the sentence will look like this.

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Interner 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 $10,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

Because it use "and" between " passed in 1999" and "allowing companies...", it indicate that they have the same function.

However, If we omit the "allowing companies..." part, the sentence will look like this:

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Interner 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.

" passed in 1999" modifies "the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act".

If we omit the " passed in 1999" part, the sentence will look like this:

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Interner 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, allowing companies to seek up to $10,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

The "allowing companies..." part does not modify "the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", but modify the preceding clause.

So my question is: how can two parts with different function parallel? Obviously, it is wrong to say:

"I read the book, published in 19th century and acquiring more knowledge."

As for the sentence in OG, I think it is ok. Because it is similar to the following sentence:

"I read the book published in 19th century and influencing many generations."

Thanks Ron!

[RonPurewal]

I guess I don't see the issue.
Choice E is an incorrect answer, so it seems you're just supplying another reason why it is wrong.

You know E is wrong, right? Just checking.