Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 24 Jul 2014, 15:03

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 59
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [1] , given: 16

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 10 Jun 2013, 03:05
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

54% (01:53) correct 46% (01:09) wrong based on 180 sessions
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to some food allergy
C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 574
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 66

Kudos [?]: 329 [0], given: 298

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Misplaced Modifier error? [#permalink] New post 10 Jun 2013, 04:44
nikhil.jones.s wrote:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to some food allergy
C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior


I am able to remove the choices ACD, but of out remaining choices, i picked E.
Can someone please explain this
_________________

ISB Class of 2016 | Chat Session with ISB ADCOM | How to get started with Essays | GMAT Retake Debrief
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISB Class of 2015 | My GMAT Debrief | My ISB Interview | General interview tips | How to tackle "Do you have anything to ask" question | Important links by the ISB ADCOM for applications and interview preparation

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 930
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 227 [1] , given: 543

Re: Misplaced Modifier error? [#permalink] New post 10 Jun 2013, 04:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
This is an OG question not from Manhattan. The problem is here we need a if- then condition for this sentence to work

if the behaviour is because of food allergy, then perpetrators are not responsible for their actions.

As per E the food allergy as the cause of criminal behaviour switches the roles... also its passive voice
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html


Last edited by fozzzy on 10 Jun 2013, 04:57, edited 1 time in total.
1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1125
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 105

Kudos [?]: 1093 [1] , given: 219

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: Misplaced Modifier error? [#permalink] New post 10 Jun 2013, 04:56
1
This post received
KUDOS
ankurgupta03 wrote:
I am able to remove the choices ACD, but of out remaining choices, i picked E.
Can someone please explain this


Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

It's not easy to pick an answer just by looking at the underlined portion, here how the sentence continues is crucial.

"but in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior, the perpetrators are in effect told" is not a correct construct.

On the other hand, option B is a correct "modifer" of the situation:

"but if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told"
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 8
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GPA: 3.3
WE: Business Development (Consumer Products)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 9

Re: Misplaced Modifier error? [#permalink] New post 12 Jun 2013, 21:53
Hi, can someone please explain the difference between choices B and D.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 992
Location: United States
Followers: 112

Kudos [?]: 1094 [0], given: 118

Re: Misplaced Modifier error? [#permalink] New post 12 Jun 2013, 23:45
Ace99 wrote:
Hi, can someone please explain the difference between choices B and D.


Hi Ace99

Correct idiom: attribute X TO Y
Wrong idiom: attribute X AS a cause of Y

You can read Manhattan GMAT - Sentence correction, page 148, Idiom part.

Hope that helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 8
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GPA: 3.3
WE: Business Development (Consumer Products)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 9

Re: Misplaced Modifier error? [#permalink] New post 13 Jun 2013, 01:36
Thanks for clarifying the error. it helped.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 238
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 63

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 14 Sep 2013, 05:12
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients' misconduct stemmed from reaction to something ingested,
but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy,
the perpetrators are in effect told
that they are not responsible for their actions.

The ing modifer is incorrect since its modifying perpetuators. I have a question regarding comma + but in option B its playing a role of DC?
Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1744
Followers: 1187

Kudos [?]: 3160 [0], given: 176

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 17 Sep 2013, 01:01
Expert's post
nelz007 wrote:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients' misconduct stemmed from reaction to something ingested,
but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy,
the perpetrators are in effect told
that they are not responsible for their actions.

The ing modifer is incorrect since its modifying perpetuators. I have a question regarding comma + but in option B its playing a role of DC?


Hi Nelson,

Yes. You are absolutely right that the Verb-ing modifier is incorrect in modifying “perpetrators” and so is incorrect in the original sentence.

I understand your query regarding Option B (the Correct Option). Let me write the whole sentence using Option B.

    Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
      o that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but
    if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food,
      o the perpetrators are in effect told
         that they are not responsible for their actions.


Now as you have observed, “if criminal….to some food” is indeed a DC.

However you need to observe that this DC is properly connected to an IC (the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.)

This is similar to the way you considered the entire clause before the “Comma+But” as an IC.

(You didn’t say “that their clients…” is a DC, did you? You observed the IC “Defense attorneys…” before it, observed the connection (that) between them and concluded that the whole entity is an IC).

Remember that when proper connection is made, an IC + DC combination gives rise to a big IC.

So “If criminal…, the perpetrators…actions” is in fact an IC.

So there is nothing incorrect with the usage of “Comma + But” in Option B.

Hope this helps! :)

Regards,
Krishna
_________________



Free Webinar: July 26, 2014 - Ace GMAT RC: Register for this Free Webinar to learn how to apply the Reading Strategies critical to ace the GMAT Reading Comprehension. Click here to register.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 45
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2013, 17:02
egmat wrote:
nelz007 wrote:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients' misconduct stemmed from reaction to something ingested,
but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy,
the perpetrators are in effect told
that they are not responsible for their actions.

The ing modifer is incorrect since its modifying perpetuators. I have a question regarding comma + but in option B its playing a role of DC?


Hi Nelson,

Yes. You are absolutely right that the Verb-ing modifier is incorrect in modifying “perpetrators” and so is incorrect in the original sentence.

I understand your query regarding Option B (the Correct Option). Let me write the whole sentence using Option B.

    Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
      o that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but
    if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food,
      o the perpetrators are in effect told
         that they are not responsible for their actions.


Now as you have observed, “if criminal….to some food” is indeed a DC.

However you need to observe that this DC is properly connected to an IC (the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.)

This is similar to the way you considered the entire clause before the “Comma+But” as an IC.

(You didn’t say “that their clients…” is a DC, did you? You observed the IC “Defense attorneys…” before it, observed the connection (that) between them and concluded that the whole entity is an IC).

Remember that when proper connection is made, an IC + DC combination gives rise to a big IC.

So “If criminal…, the perpetrators…actions” is in fact an IC.

So there is nothing incorrect with the usage of “Comma + But” in Option B.

Hope this helps! :)

Regards,
Krishna


Hi Krishna,
the rule as mentioned Shradha in post beatrix-potter-in-her-book-illustrations-carefully-119216.html#p1086836. States that "the verb-ing modifier is placed after comma, then it modifies the entire preceding clause". however, your explaination contradicts this rule. Please help explain.
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their   [#permalink] 12 Oct 2013, 17:02
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their ts2014 0 04 Oct 2012, 21:41
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their mymba99 0 03 Jun 2008, 14:55
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their tarek99 0 12 Jan 2008, 08:05
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their vshaunak@gmail.com 0 17 May 2007, 12:01
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their saurya_s 0 03 May 2005, 04:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.