tanishkamishra wrote:
Hi
I went through all the posts under this question and understood why the sentence is grammatically wrong and why is option B the correct answer choice. However, I am still not very clear about the intended meaning of the sentence.
Can anyone help me out by explaining the intended meaning of the sentence in simple words?
Thankyou in advance!
Here's the full sentence with the OA inserted:
Quote:
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.
A client's "misconduct" is whatever the client did to break the law. For example, let's say that Tim drove his car across his neighbor's lawn and destroyed some of his neighbor's property. Tim now finds himself in court, facing jail time for reckless driving, plus financial penalties to pay for the damage.
Tim's defense attorney might argue that Tim only did this because he was having a reaction to the Firecracker Burrito he had just eaten at Taco Bell. So maybe Tim shouldn't have to pay for the damage or go to jail. After all, it was the burrito's fault!
In this situation, the attorney's argument rests on the notion that Tim's criminal (or delinquent) behavior isn't Tim's fault. Instead, the food (or the allergy to that food) is at fault. If the judge and jury buy that argument, then they are essentially saying, "You're right, attorney... this wasn't Tim's fault, it was the food allergy's fault." And if the food allergy is responsible for Tim's driving mishap, then Tim is not responsible.
In other words, attributing the mishap to the food allergy effectively says: "Hey Tim, don't worry... this wasn't your fault!" In other words, if they attribute the mishap to his allergies, they're telling Tim that he is not responsible for his actions.
I hope that makes sense!