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

It is currently 22 Oct 2014, 19:33

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:
4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 606
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [4] , given: 0

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 02 Sep 2004, 05:14
4
This post received
KUDOS
23
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

Last edited by saurya_s on 21 Jun 2005, 13:10, edited 1 time in total.
Expert Post
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 2266
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 267

Kudos [?]: 1700 [0], given: 249

Premium Member
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 22 Jul 2012, 07:28
Expert's post
No. It will not be. There is no difference between ‘in attributing’ and ‘by attributing’. Both are prepositional phrases and do neither alter the structure nor the logic. As long as the modified noun is not underlined, then we have to the change the modifier to suit the perpetrators.
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 209
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 44

CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 04 Oct 2012, 21:41
This is an idiom question . Attribute X(an effect ) to Y(a cause). Which lead to what? Criminal or delinquent behaviour lead to an allergy. Eliminate C,D,E . We left with A and B. I choosed A but when I read again I noticed ......in attributing criminal or delinquent behaviour to some food energy, the perpetrators. It clearly modifies perpetrators. But I admit that I did not understand to whole sentence.
_________________

If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, I kinda need some =)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 138
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 22

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 307
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 46

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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 choice`s explanation...........
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 59
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 24

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their client [#permalink] New post 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 choice`s 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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 453
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 146 [0], given: 70

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 914
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 318

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1227
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 67

Kudos [?]: 717 [0], given: 116

Premium Member
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 914
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 318

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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

Can you please advise on that?

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
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1227
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 67

Kudos [?]: 717 [0], given: 116

Premium Member
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 914
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 318

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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.

Plz advise

Rgds,
TGC!
_________________

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Posts: 31
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.49
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 33

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 249
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 47

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 284
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 23

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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
Shraddha



HI Shraddha,

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
Manager
User avatar
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: 1

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 59

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink] New post 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.

Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1794
Followers: 1299

Kudos [?]: 3669 [0], given: 185

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


HI Shraddha,

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
_________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeT9_Wr0DlI&feature=youtu.be

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their   [#permalink] 12 Jun 2014, 08:45
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their goalsnr 0 14 Jul 2008, 10:34
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  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   [ 116 posts ] 



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®.