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

 It is currently 13 Feb 2016, 05:50

### 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

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

# 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:
Senior Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Hanoi
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 48 [5] , given: 0

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  02 Sep 2004, 05:48
5
KUDOS
30
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a 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 an allergy to some food

(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
_________________

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"

Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 137
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 22

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  28 Jan 2013, 01:32
gmataspirant2009 wrote:
235. Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a 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 an allergy to some food
(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

How the OA B is not a run-on.....can anyone explain
not able to figure out

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued 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, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions. modifying what???
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 229
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 231 [0], given: 46

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  04 Apr 2013, 12:13
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a 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 an allergy to some food
(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

Need every answer choices explanation...........
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 82
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 25

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  06 Apr 2013, 07:27
mun23 wrote:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a 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 an allergy to some food
(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

Need every answer choices explanation...........

I suggest searching the forums for explanations before posting. Here are three threads that contain the same question:

defense-attorneys-have-occasionally-argued-that-their-83302.html
defense-attorneys-have-occasionally-argued-that-their-84605.html
defense-attorneys-have-occasionally-argued-that-their-81029.html
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 452
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 70

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  02 May 2013, 00:43
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Please check and follow the Guidelines for Posting in Verbal GMAT forum before posting anything.
Current Student
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 915
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 479 [0], given: 322

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  26 Aug 2013, 05:55
Explanations apart I didn't get the meaning of the sentence as the first clause creates a fragment in the original:

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a 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.

Subject= GREEN
Verb = RED

I have marked subjects,verbs, and modifiers in the original sentence. However it seems that the part of sentence
"Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their
clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to
something ingested" is not a clause but a FRAGMENT.

Please advise how to understand this sentence

Rgds,
TGC!
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1230
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 100

Kudos [?]: 1069 [0], given: 116

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  27 Aug 2013, 03:32
My two cents...

A, C and E are wrong. The modifier wrong modifies "the perpetrators". (The sentence clearly means to say that the defense attorneys are the ones doing the attributing. It does not make sense to say that the perpatrators tell themselves that they are not responsible for their actions)

D uses "attributed as" which is idiomatically wrong ( well at least it doesn't sound right)

B remains as the right answer.

IMO B
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Current Student
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 915
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 479 [0], given: 322

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  27 Aug 2013, 03:34
MacFauz wrote:
My two cents...

A, C and E are wrong. The modifier wrong modifies "the perpetrators". (The sentence clearly means to say that the defense attorneys are the ones doing the attributing. It does not make sense to say that the perpatrators tell themselves that they are not responsible for their actions)

D uses "attributed as" which is idiomatically wrong ( well at least it doesn't sound right)

B remains as the right answer.

IMO B

Hi MF,

I understood the POE. However, I have a specific query which I have mentioned in my previous post.

that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to
something ingested (this isn't a proper clause as it doesn't have a verb), BUT Clause

Why the structure is not as mentioned below:

that their clients’ misconduct is stemmed from a reaction to
something ingested

Rgds,
TGC!
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Last edited by TGC on 27 Aug 2013, 03:38, edited 1 time in total.
Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1230
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 100

Kudos [?]: 1069 [0], given: 116

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  27 Aug 2013, 03:38
TGC wrote:
Explanations apart I didn't get the meaning of the sentence as the first clause creates a fragment in the original:

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a 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.

Subject= GREEN
Verb = RED

I have marked subjects,verbs, and modifiers in the original sentence. However it seems that the part of sentence
"Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their
clientThe original sentence wont make sense beacuse it is wrong. Let's take the option B

"Defense attorneys have occasionally argued 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 the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions."

To find the object let us ask "Defense attorneys have argued WHAT?"
Answer : That "their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested".s’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to
something ingested" is not a clause but a FRAGMENT.

Please advise how to understand this sentence

Rgds,
TGC!

The original sentence wont make sense beacuse it is wrong. Let's take the option B

"Defense attorneys have occasionally argued 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 the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions."

To find the object let us ask "Defense attorneys have argued WHAT?"
Answer : That "their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested".

Now to answer your point, the clients' misconduct STEMMED from a reaction to something ingested. STEMMED is not a past participle but rather a verb in the past tense
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Current Student
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 915
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 479 [0], given: 322

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  27 Aug 2013, 03:43
MacFauz wrote:
TGC wrote:
Explanations apart I didn't get the meaning of the sentence as the first clause creates a fragment in the original:

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a 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.

Subject= GREEN
Verb = RED

I have marked subjects,verbs, and modifiers in the original sentence. However it seems that the part of sentence
"Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their
clientThe original sentence wont make sense beacuse it is wrong. Let's take the option B

"Defense attorneys have occasionally argued 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 the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions."

To find the object let us ask "Defense attorneys have argued WHAT?"
Answer : That "their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested".s’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to
something ingested" is not a clause but a FRAGMENT.

Please advise how to understand this sentence

Rgds,
TGC!

The original sentence wont make sense beacuse it is wrong. Let's take the option B

"Defense attorneys have occasionally argued 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 the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions."

To find the object let us ask "Defense attorneys have argued WHAT?"
Answer : That "their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested".

I fully agree with you ""Defense attorneys have argued WHAT?""

However,

2 Uses of THAT

(1). To join two clauses
(2). To act as a subordinator

Here "THAT" has been used to join two clauses.

Clause 1:Defense attorneys have argued
Clause 2:
their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested

The above clause doesn't have a VERB.

Rgds,
TGC!
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1230
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 100

Kudos [?]: 1069 [1] , given: 116

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  27 Aug 2013, 03:46
1
KUDOS
Sorry to have missed that out.. I've edited the above post..
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Current Student
Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Posts: 39
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.49
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 45

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  26 Sep 2013, 05:45
Allergy is a kind of reaction i.e behavior. So anything that connects behavior and allergy (not food allergy) will be the right choice. Sounds twisted, I know. but that's my understanding.
Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 244
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 47

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  09 Jan 2014, 02:20
saurya_s wrote:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a 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 an allergy to some food
(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

"if X is attributet TO an Y TO some Z".. just sounds awkward.. Im confused, how can this have been an official question that existed on an actual test?

"attributed as" is just wrong, so I eliminated D/E.. C was gone because "in attributing X that is Y or Z to an A to some B" just sounds extremely awkward. B doesn't have the same extent of awkward construction but it's STILL awkward..

What's wrong with using the present participle attributing? It modifies criminal or delinquent behavior, what's the problem? That's why I went with A.

Or does "attributing" in fact modify the first noun that comes after the clause? In that case, "perpetrators... attributing", they're not attributing anything..

I would greatly appreciate if some expert could just explain what error Im making with the present participle attributing..
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 328
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 23

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  18 Apr 2014, 13:12
egmat wrote:
Hi Shikhar,

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a 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.

In the underlined portion of the sentence, the verb-ing modifier “in attributing…” is modifying the subject of the following clause which is “the perpetrators”. This suggests that the perpetrators perform the action of “attributing” which is illogical.
Let’s take simple examples to see how this modifier is functioning.

Reading from the red book, grandmother put the children to sleep.

Here, the verb-ing modifier is “reading”. So, who did the action of reading? Grandmother. Since “grandmother” is the subject of the following clause, modifier “reading” is correctly modifying “grandmother”.

Now read this one.

Reading the book, the children were out to sleep by grandmother.

This sentence is not correct because the subject of the clause is now “the children” and they certainly did not do the action of “reading”.

In the same way, “perpetrators” did not do the action of “attributing” the criminal behavior. They are the ones who showed criminal behavior. Now, the “perpetrators” falls in the non-underlined portion of the sentence. Hence we must choose an answer choice that correctly refers to perpetrators. Choices A, C, and E can be eliminated alone on the modifier basis. Choice D has the idiom issue. Choice B correctly and clearly conveys the logical intended meaning of the sentence.

Hope this helps.
Thanks

Thanks for the explanation although I'm still a little confused.

You're saying that the modifier modifies the subject and not the object - correct? If that's the case, then your sentence that states "Reading the book, the children were out to sleep by grandmother." - The grandmother PUTS the children to sleep. In this case, isn't the grandmother the subject because she is DOING the action? If so, doesn't that means that the modifier "reading" is correctly related to the grandmother?

Also, why is "is attributed to" no longer modifying the perpetrators?

Thanks!
Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2012
Posts: 54
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Nonprofit
GMAT Date: 09-13-2013
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 59

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  11 Jun 2014, 08:26
OA: B

The original sentence contains a misplaced modifier. The modifying phrase (in attributing...) incorrectly describes perpetrators when it should describe defense attorneys. The correct idiom in the active voice is one attributes x (an effect) to y (a cause). In the passive voice, x (the effect) is attributed to y (the cause). The best way to correct the sentence is to transform the modifying phrase into a subordinate clause that uses the idiom correctly: criminal or delinquent behavior (x) is attributed to (verb phrase) an allergy to some food (y).
_________________

Remember that potential unused turns into pain. So dedicate yourself to expressing your best.

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1916
Followers: 1765

Kudos [?]: 5575 [0], given: 239

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  12 Jun 2014, 08:45
Expert's post
russ9 wrote:

Thanks for the explanation although I'm still a little confused.

You're saying that the modifier modifies the subject and not the object - correct? If that's the case, then your sentence that states "Reading the book, the children were out to sleep by grandmother." - The grandmother PUTS the children to sleep. In this case, isn't the grandmother the subject because she is DOING the action? If so, doesn't that means that the modifier "reading" is correctly related to the grandmother?

Also, why is "is attributed to" no longer modifying the perpetrators?

Thanks!

Hi russ9,

Thank you for the post.

As we know, when we change the voice of a sentence from active to passive, the subject of the sentence is also changed. Also, the subject of a sentence should always make sense with the verb.

ACTIVE VOICE
He bought this book. (Subject- He; Object- this book)
Who bought this book?- He did.

PASSIVE VOICE
This book was bought by him. (Subject- This book; Object- him)
What was bought by him?- This book was bought by him.

Similarly, in the given sentences:
Reading from the red book, grandmother put the children to sleep.
Who put the children to sleep?- Grandmother did.
So, the subject for this sentence is ‘grandmother’. The modifier ‘reading from the red book’ modifies the subject correctly.

Reading from the red book, the children were put to sleep by grandmother.
Who were put to sleep?- The children were put to sleep.
So, the subject for this sentence is ‘the children’. In this sentence, the modifier ‘reading from the red book’ incorrectly modifies ‘the children’.

Now, coming to the next question, ‘is attributed to’ is not modifying ‘the perpetrators’ since it is not a modifier now. It acts as a verb for the subject ‘criminal or delinquent behavior’ in option B.
In the original sentence, “in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy” is a modifying phrase and the verb-ing modifier modifies the subject of the following clause while in option B “if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food” is a clause in which ‘criminal or delinquent behavior’ is the subject and ‘is attributed’ is the verb.

Hope this helps!
Deepak
_________________

Aiming to score 760+ on the GMAT? Attend our free webinars to learn how to:

[*] Master Number Properties
[*] Ace Critical Reasoning

The webinars will start at 7 AM PST on the 11th and 12th of July, 2015.

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 602
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 200

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  07 Jan 2015, 14:43
Eliminate A,C and E --> In attributing modifies the subject of the following clause - “the perpetrators”. This suggests that the perpetrators perform the action of “attributing” which is illogical. The attorneys should be the subject here not the perpetrators.
Eliminate D --> wrong idiom; It's also wordier ... attributed as a cause of....
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Manager
Status: suffer now and live forever as a champion!!!
Joined: 01 Sep 2013
Posts: 149
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 44 [1] , given: 75

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  09 Jan 2015, 06:29
1
KUDOS
This is one of the good Questions that i have came across.
We have a coordinating conjunction "but" here.
A modifier after 'but' implies modifier is working on second part of the sentence.
From the first part it is clear that Defense Attorneys are attributing something.
But from the underlined modifier "in attributing.............. , the perpetrators ............. " , the modifier is referring to perpetrators .
Hence A,C,E ----wrong
Correct idiom is "attribute X to Y"
Hence B;
Chat Moderator
Joined: 19 Apr 2013
Posts: 736
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
GPA: 4
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 517

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  24 Feb 2015, 22:48
-ing modifier should have as a subject defense attorneys
_________________

If my post was helpful, press Kudos. If not, then just press Kudos !!!

Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Posts: 68
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 12

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  25 Feb 2015, 04:05
dheeraj24 wrote:
We have a coordinating conjunction "but" here.
A modifier after 'but' implies modifier is working on second part of the sentence.
From the first part it is clear that Defense Attorneys are attributing something.
But from the underlined modifier "in attributing.............. , the perpetrators ............. " , the modifier is referring to perpetrators .
Hence A,C,E ----wrong
Correct idiom is "attribute X to Y"
Hence B;

Yes; also I think this is not just limited to "but"; any coordinating conjunction, in this kind of a structure, would work the same way. For example:

In fighting against the odds, Gomez showed resilience, and by successfully coming out of a troubled marriage, Gomez's sister Jennifer showed that she was equally resilient.

Here, the participle phrase "by successfully coming out of a troubled marriage, Gomez's sister Jennifer" is obviously modifying Jennifer (even when the conjunction used in this case is "and").
Chat Moderator
Joined: 19 Apr 2013
Posts: 736
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
GPA: 4
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 517

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]  25 Feb 2015, 04:10
VerbalHow wrote:
dheeraj24 wrote:
We have a coordinating conjunction "but" here.
A modifier after 'but' implies modifier is working on second part of the sentence.
From the first part it is clear that Defense Attorneys are attributing something.
But from the underlined modifier "in attributing.............. , the perpetrators ............. " , the modifier is referring to perpetrators .
Hence A,C,E ----wrong
Correct idiom is "attribute X to Y"
Hence B;

Yes; also I think this is not just limited to "but"; any coordinating conjunction, in this kind of a structure, would work the same way. For example:

In fighting against the odds, Gomez showed resilience, and by successfully coming out of a troubled marriage, Gomez's sister Jennifer showed that she was equally resilient.

Here, the participle phrase "by successfully coming out of a troubled marriage, Gomez's sister Jennifer" is obviously modifying Jennifer (even when the conjunction used in this case is "and").

You are right. "But" is irrelevant in this discussion. The post is very old, so we do not even know whether the author is alive or not
_________________

If my post was helpful, press Kudos. If not, then just press Kudos !!!

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their   [#permalink] 25 Feb 2015, 04:10

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7    Next  [ 125 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their 0 20 Jul 2008, 05:19
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their 0 14 Jul 2008, 10:34
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their 0 03 Jun 2008, 14:55
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their 0 12 Jan 2008, 08:05
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their 0 17 May 2007, 12:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their

 Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.