It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 23:05

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

5 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 155 [5], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2004, 06:48
5
This post received
KUDOS
130
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"

Kudos [?]: 155 [5], given: 0

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 893

Kudos [?]: 1817 [0], given: 302

Location: Switzerland
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: LBS MIF '19
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2015, 11:13
bigtooth81 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


THE CORRECT IDIOM IN THE ACTIVE VOICE IS "ONE ATTRIBUTES X TO Y" AND IN THE PASSIVE VOICE, "X IS ATTRIBUTED TO Y".

So D and E are out.

A and C have a misplaced modifier. The modyfing phrase should describe the defense attorneys not the perpetrators.
_________________

Saving was yesterday, heat up the gmatclub.forum's sentiment by spending KUDOS!

PS Please send me PM if I do not respond to your question within 24 hours.

Kudos [?]: 1817 [0], given: 302

1 KUDOS received
Rice (Jones) Thread Master
User avatar
B
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 236

Kudos [?]: 84 [1], given: 147

GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2015, 12:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
cg0588 wrote:
How is the modifier in A and C modifying perpetrators? IMO, it seems to modify attorney...


Hi cg0588,
the modifier "in attributing ... ", is modifying the subject of the clause it is modifying. Notice that there are two independent clause here in the form "A, but B" as follows:

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.

The independent clauses are marked and there are joined using independent clause marker comma+but. The modifier "in attributing ..." cannot jump over comma+but and modify the previous clause.

Hope it is clear.
_________________

Consider KUDOS if my post helped :)

I got the eye of the tiger, a fighter, dancing through the fire
'Cause I am a champion and you're gonna hear me roar

Kudos [?]: 84 [1], given: 147

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2015
Posts: 262

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 165

GMAT 1: 540 Q39 V26
GMAT 2: 680 Q46 V37
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2015, 04:33
there is nothing called as food allergy. The sentence "I have food allergy" is erroneous. the correct statement is "I am allergic to food:. That eliminates A,D,E.

Between B and D, B has the right idimoatic expression "attributed to"
_________________

Fais de ta vie un rêve et d'un rêve une réalité

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 165

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 May 2016
Posts: 171

Kudos [?]: 134 [0], given: 33

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

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2016, 09:47
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
If we use "in attributing", it seems as if the perpetrators were attributing the behaviour to something, while it is someone else who is attributing the behaviour to something.
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
If we use "in attributing", it seems as if the perpetrators were attributing the behaviour to something, while it is someone else who is attributing the behaviour to something.
D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
"attributed as the cause of" is redundant. This idea can be expressed more succintly by using the expression "attribute X to Y".
E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
If we use "in attributing", it seems as if the perpetrators were attributing the behaviour to something, while it is someone else who is attributing the behaviour to something.
"attributed as the cause of" is redundant. This idea can be expressed more succintly by using the expression "attribute X to Y".

Kudos [?]: 134 [0], given: 33

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2015
Posts: 16

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

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

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2016, 22:13
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"
_________________

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Dec 2014
Posts: 81

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 997

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2016, 09:37
bigtooth81: very distracting pic ;)

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 997

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 906

Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V24
GRE 1: 314 Q167 V147
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jan 2017, 10:22
Hi sayantanc2k and all,
I have gone through some threads and understand that B is the best among the rest.However,I have one question with the meaning of the correct option.The "if " brings us to the conditional clause.
The independent clause : the perpetrator (who) are in effect told...
The dependent clause : if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food
This means only the condition is met,then the perpetrator told something;To me this is strange and even the tense is not match properly.

Could anyone please share your thoughts and correct my misunderstanding?
Thanks a tons :-)

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 906

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 09 Jan 2016
Posts: 135

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 59

GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Human Resources)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2017, 04:36
Good question...i am stucked with the answer choice A and B.

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 59

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 473

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 179

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2017, 13:31
bigtooth81 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

Hi sayantanc2k,
Brother, I am little bit confused about the use of the pronoun in this sentence. As far we know, in a sentence, THEIR, THEY, THEM are being used for SAME noun. In the 1st part of the sentence, THEIR is being used for the noun ''Defense attorneys'', but in the second part of the sentence THEY has been used for the noun ''perpetrators''. So, is there any pronoun ambiguity of this sentence?
Thanks...
_________________

“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”
― Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 179

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Dec 2016
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 66

Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 550 Q47 V20
GPA: 3.2
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2017, 16:57
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 such constructions Verb-ing/preposition Verb-ing modify the subject, Here "perpetrators". Such usage changes the meaning. So it's not acceptable.

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 66

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 29

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

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2017, 00:49
Hi friends,
except the modifier issue, the main issue in A, C, E,

In D and E, do you think of "attribute" and "cause" as redundant, because both these two words indicate causal relationship

What's your opinion?

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 29

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 412

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 99

Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2017, 09:34
bigtooth81 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


DA's sometimes argue that their clients' misconduct stems from a reaction to something they ate :)
BUT, if we say criminal behaviour stems from food allergies, the perpetrators are told they are not responsible for their actions.
The above meaning blabber is for my own practice

Correct Idiom - Attribute to
D is out.
A,C,E are missing a appropriate subject for the prepositional noun modifier 'in attributing.... food'. So they are out. This modifier is modifying perpetrators, and the meaning is absurd i.e. the crooks attribute their behaviour to some food allergy and that tells them, they are not responsible for their behaviour.
B is the correct answer.
_________________

Put in the work, and that dream score is yours!

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 99

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 254

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 1

Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2017, 20:42
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" = illogical modifier. does not show us a CAUSE for the upcoming EFFECT.

(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food
- correct as is. properly sets up CAUSAL argument: IF this, (THEN) that ...

(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
- opposite correlation. we want behavior to food allergy, not the other way around...

(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
- same as "A" & "D"

Kudos please if you find this helpful :) [

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 1

Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 943

Kudos [?]: 220 [0], given: 188

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.5
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2017, 12:34
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

==> prepositional phrase "in attributing" is modifying the subject "perpetrators" which is incorrect, hence out

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

==> CORRECT

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

==> prepositional phrase "in attributing" is modifying the subject "perpetrators" which is incorrect, hence out

(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior

==> "attributed as the cause of" is incorrect IDIOM, the correct IDIOM is "attributed to"

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

==> prepositional phrase "in attributing" is modifying the subject "perpetrators" which is incorrect, hence out
_________________

"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

Worried About IDIOMS? Here is a Daily Practice List: https://gmatclub.com/forum/idiom-s-ydmuley-s-daily-practice-list-250731.html#p1937393

Best AWA Template: https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html#p470475

Kudos [?]: 220 [0], given: 188

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Status: Aiming MBA!!
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 68

Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.75
WE: Web Development (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2017, 05:38
bigtooth81 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.


Though I did this question wrong initially, as the intended meaning was NOT clear to me. Let me try to help. Understanding the intended meaning is the key to solve this question correctly.

Defense attorneys are attributing their clients' indigestion (or food poisoning/alergy) to their misbehavior (criminal or delinquent behavior). However, this attribution is leading to a conclusion that the culprits are not responsible for their actions.

Now coming to the options,

(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
wrong modification, it is modifying the perpetrators. Therefore, incorrect.

(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food
attribute X to Y is the idiomatic usage.

(C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
wrong modification, it is modifying the perpetrators. Therefore, incorrect.

(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
attributed as is not the idiomatic usage. Wordy choice as compared to B.

(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
wrong modification, it is modifying the perpetrators. Therefore, incorrect.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 68

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their   [#permalink] 20 Oct 2017, 05:38

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   [ 135 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.