ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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 seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

正确答案: C

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 3198|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

prep sc-69

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-4-29 18:31:50 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
同上
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2011-4-29 18:35:31 | 只看该作者
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 seek up to $100,000 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 $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

(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

(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

(D) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 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 $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
我知道答案就在abc之间,且intent if比 intent that更好,故为a或c。就是allowing与allow了。。。应该是accp法律allow吗。。。。accp的通过allow不行吗?
板凳
发表于 2011-4-29 18:57:30 | 只看该作者
allowing分词放在句尾可以表示前面所述事情的结果,个人认为这种理解是可以的(The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters导致了法案的通过,结果是允许公司balabala~),但还有一种理解就是修饰的是句子的主语,也就是The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters,这样是不合逻辑的,所以这里修饰有歧义~
另外楼主你忽略了A和C之间还有一个差别哦,就是passing和passage~passing的话感觉是一个过程,而passage是一个结果,在这里显然是导致了法案通过的结果,而不是过程。
所以C更好。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-28 09:18
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部