Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond

Hi lakshya14,

The problem is that the sentence "breaks" at but. Does this post help?

can you pleaes explain what makes a and c wrong? GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep

Hi

When a verb+ing modifier appears before a clause, it modifies the subject of the following cause. For example:

Raising his voice in fury, John hurled a volley of abuses at the mechanic.

Who did the "raising"? The subject of the following clause - John.

Similarly, in this sentence, the verb+ing modifier "attributing criminal or..." appears before the clause "the perpetrators are in effect...". Applying the same rule shown above, the modifier "attributing" must modify "perpetrators". This implies that the perpetrators are the ones who are attributing criminal behavior to food allergy, which is illogical in the context of the sentence. Hence options (A) and (C) are incorrect.

Hope this helps.

Hi shenwenlim,

Options A and C (and E) use the phrase in attributing. When we put that phrase at the beginning of a clause, we must make sure that the noun that starts the clause (the subject of that clause) is the one that is actually doing the attributing.

In attributing X to Y, ________ ⟵ whatever goes here has to be the thing that is doing the attributing.

The problem is that the sentence already has the perpetrators in that position in the portion that is not underlined. So we end up with

In attributing X to Y, the perpetrators

Since the perpetrators are not the ones who are doing the attributing (the defense attorneys are the ones who are actually doing the attributing), we can safely remove A, C, and E.

I was confused about the verb-ing modifier and exactly what it modified. I had read this rule from an expert reply to another question "When a verb-ing modifier is preceded by a comma, it always modifies the entire preceding clause. The verb-ing modifier denotes an action and this action must make sense with the subject of the preceding clause". I realize even then, it would be modifying the previous clause and not just the defense attorney's who are doing the attributing as the sentence is logically trying to imply. But is there a more steadfast rule for these verb-ing modifiers? Does the fact that "but in" comes between "attributing" and the comma change mean that "attributing" can't modify the previous clause and must modify the subject of the preceding clause? Or is it because the first clause is an independent clause and the middle clause is a dependent clause that is dependent on the following independent clause, so the modifier in the dependent clause modifies the subject of the independent clause that it depends on?

GMATNinja

khert87
The short version is that there is no such absolute rule. -Ing modifiers preceded by a comma are most commonly adverbial, but we have to use the overall structure and meaning to determine which part of the sentence they are modifying.

In this case, it may help to strip out all the modifiers and look at the sentence core (always a good idea, really):

Attorneys have occasionally argued that misconduct stemmed (from a reaction*), but the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible.

Clearly we lose a lot of meaning here, but we now better see how the sentence is built. The conjunction "but" links two otherwise independent clauses: "Attorneys have argued . . . " and "The perpetrators are told . . . " Since the modifier in question is after the linking word "but," it has to apply to the second clause. Technically, it isn't modifying "perpetrators" but rather the verb "are told." However, when we modify a verb, we have to be talking about whoever is doing the action, so it comes to the same thing. For that reason, when we have a modifier that precedes the clause it modifies, we can usually get away with treating it as a noun modifier applying to the subject, even if that's not strictly accurate.


*(I have "from a reaction" in parentheses because it is technically an adverbial modifier for "stemmed," but that verb is hard to read by itself: what would "misconduct stemmed" mean without the modifier?)

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 “in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy” is referring to the action of attributing. Here, it seems like the perpetrators are attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy; however, since the defense attorneys are doing the arguing, they are attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy. This option confuses the meaning.

(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food Correct use of the idiom "attributed to"

(C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food Same as A

(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior "Attributed as" is incorrect idiomatic usage

(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior Same as A

- Nitha Jay

it may have been commented already but some food allergy != an allergy to some food

faat99
Perhaps not, but is there enough of a distinction for you to rule out an answer on that basis alone? How would you do that?

Hey Dmitry, not sure if right:

I was thinking "an allergy to some food" (one allergy) is not the same as "some food allergy" (multiple allergies) - so A,D out.

others have been discussed widely already:
- attributed as = wrong idiom, E out
- B&C effectively is the same, but C looks like a preposition modifier incorrectly modifying perpetrators. So B left.

faat99
Hmm, but "not the same" doesn't tell you which choice, if either, is wrong. You could just as easily say that BC are out, or say that although the options are slightly different, both make acceptable meanings. If the answer isn't clearly wrong, don't cut it.

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
= when the perpetrators attributed criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
1. wrong subject
* not the perpetrators attributed criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
* "Defense attorneys" attributed criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy

(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food (OA)

(C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
= when the perpetrators attributed that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
1. wrong subject
* not the perpetrators attributed .....
* "Defense attorneys" attributed ....
AND
2. two meaning
in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
IT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SB ATTRIBUTE BAD BEHAVIOR TO ALLERGY
in attributing (behavior that is criminal or delinquent) to (an allergy to some food)
BUT IN THIS SENTENCE CAN ALSO MEAN
in attributing behavior (that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy) to some food
TO FOOD?!


(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
3. redundancy
"some food allergy" is fine.
But "is attributed to sth" / "as the cause of"
These two are the same meaning. Redundancy!

(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
= when the perpetrators attributed a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
1. wrong subject
* not the perpetrators attributed .....
* "Defense attorneys" attributed ....
ALSO
3. redundancy
'attribute sth to sth" /"as the cause of"
These two are the same meaning. Redundancy!




overall

(A)(C)(E) WRONG SUBJECT
(C) TWO MEANING
(D)(E) REDUNDANCY

D and E are redundant (attribute - cause by)
A and C "in attributing" is acting as a modifier for perpetrators
B is correct "attributed to"

I have a doubt.

In the initial part it is explained that defence attorneys are attributing the behaviour to food allergy.

So isn't the meaning clear that the subject is same for the second part(underlined portion).

If i read this as:
Defence attorneys do something, but in doing so, something happens.

Please help.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello Flyingabhi,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of the "comma + conjunction ("but" in this sentence,)" construction indicates that the clause that follows is an independent one; thus, the modifier phrase "in attributing..." modifies the subject of the following clause, not that of the preceding clause.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

What is this verbing modifier referred to in grammar? Is it a Verbal? If yes then gerund? Participle? I am confused. Can you please clear it out.

Also shouldn't there be an action after , but since but is a conjunction that joins independant clauses. Hence the options which has 'is' as the verb are better and out of them the one which uses attributed to wins.

Kindly guide and correct me here.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello experts,

everyone is saying that in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy ,is modifying the subject " the perpetrators" and hence, illogical.

but perpetrators can attribute their criminal behavior to some food allergy to defend themselves.

Or is it the reason that in attributing...... is modifying "are told"

someone else is telling the perpetrators that that they are not responsible for their actions. hence, they are not themselves attributing the behavior to the allergy, someone else is.

Am I correct?

Also what IF clause is doing here,
how If clause is correct.? can someone help me understand the meaning?