Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 17:05

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 266
Location: Hanoi
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 98 [1] , given: 0

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2004, 05:48
1
KUDOS
80
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

40% (02:08) correct 60% (01:22) wrong based on 4416 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

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

If you have any questions
New!
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 429 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2004, 05:52
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I would go with A for conciseness.
B's "to an allergy to some food" seems wordy to me
C) relative pronoun "that" is not required and actually makes it wordier
D and E are redundant for when you attribute X to Y, you don't need to say "attribute X as the cause of Y"
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 218
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2004, 05:55
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I believe it's B

A,C,D are all wrong because they use "in attributing" without specifying WHO is attributing
Senior Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 266
Location: Hanoi
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2004, 06:01
OlegC wrote:
I believe it's B

A,C,D are all wrong because they use "in attributing" without specifying WHO is attributing

Sorry. But in other choices, the use of "if" is awful
_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [22] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2004, 06:12
22
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
D and E are out because they do not use a right idiom (to attribute x to y).
A and C are out because they sound like perpetrators are the ones who attribute behavior to allergy. I think the ones who attribute behavior to allergy in the SC are attorneys.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 429 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2004, 06:40
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
DMJ wrote:
D and E are out because they do not use a right idiom (to attribute x to y).
A and C are out because they sound like perpetrators are the ones who attribute behavior to allergy. I think the ones who attribute behavior to allergy in the SC are attorneys.

Nice DMJ, yes, your explanation is the reason why A is rejected.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 358 [1] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2004, 17:25
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
by attributing, not in attributing, so (A), (C), (E) are out.

(D) is out, food allergy is attributed to be the cause, not as the cause
(B) for me.
Director
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 904
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 51 [3] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 May 2005, 15:14
3
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I wanted to pour in my explaination for this question just to consolidate in my mind:

Idiom Usage:
1. One attributes X, an effect, to Y, a cause
2. X (an effect) is attributed to Y.

(D) : wrong Idiom usage
(E) : wrong Idiom usage
(C): Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food, the perpeptrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

Now lets see Independent sentence starting with but:
in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food, the perpeptrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions

"in attributing..." : Prepositional Phrase is modifying immediate Noun i.e. Perpetrators and thus conveying wrong meaning. So, this choice is wrong.

(A): wrong : same as (C).
(B): Correct of the lot.

However, it is quite confusing/awkward to use "but" alongwith "if".

What do you guys think?
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 293
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2005, 05:06
Yes, if & but are coordinating conjuctions. I had read somewhere that they should not be placed together.

What is the OA?

Sorry, I was wrong, 'if' is not a coordinating conjuction.
Director
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 777
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

17 May 2007, 02:35
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 perpeÂ¬trators 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

Manager
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 152
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

17 May 2007, 03:29
vshaunak@gmail.com 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 perpeÂ¬trators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.
(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy => unclear meaning
(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 => awkward
(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 => awkward

(B) it is

Between (B) and (D), (B) wins because of right idom ( ... attributed to ...)
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 744 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

12 Jan 2008, 01:22
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

Can someone please provide me with a grammatical explanation to this question? what is it testing here cause I got it wrong. thanks
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 744 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

12 Jan 2008, 08:05
OA is B
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 555
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 355 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2008, 09:20
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

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3589
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 550

Kudos [?]: 3565 [0], given: 360

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

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2008, 09:54
For me, B is concise and 'an allergy to some food' is less ambiguous than 'some food allergy'.
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Director
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 758
Location: Oxford
Schools: Oxford'10
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 214 [3] , given: 8

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

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2008, 10:00
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
to add to walker's explanation, "Attributed To" is the correct idiom here.

also the choices starting with "in attributing.." make it sound like the perpetrators are doing the "attributing"
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3589
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 550

Kudos [?]: 3565 [0], given: 360

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

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2008, 10:10
Thanks Buffdaddy, I compared B and D rather than B and C...
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 55
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2008, 11:38
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.

Note - The conjuction 'but' is followed by an independent clause

(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy - is a modifier and the noun following it should be the attorneys because it's the attorneys who are attributing criminal behavior to some food allergy, not the perpetrators.

(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 - also a modifier and has the same flaw as answer choice 'A'.

(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior - Idiom. Attributed to

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

Ans is B
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 158
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2008, 15:49
A vs B for me.
I went with A on this as it appeared more concise. Not so sure after seeing the plethora of B's
Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 14:55
bigtreezl wrote:
why not E?

See explanation above by "Legend" on why E is not the best option.
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their   [#permalink] 03 Jun 2008, 14:55

Go to page    1   2   3   4   5   6   7    Next  [ 131 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