Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC) - Page 4
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 28 Feb 2017, 09:14

# LIVE NOW:

Cornell Johnson Adcoms on GMATClub to Chat with Applicants - Join Chat Room to Participate

### 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 [?]: 100 [1] , given: 0

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2004, 05:48
1
KUDOS
82
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"

Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 224
Location: Boston
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2010, 05:25
sachinrelan wrote:
VeritasPrepMimi wrote:
A) is wrong because of a modifier error. The perpetrators are not attributing their own behavior to a food allergy. Their defense attorneys are making that claim.

C) is wrong for a similar reason. It has the additional problem of wordiness. There’s no need to say “behavior that is criminal or delinquent” when you could just say “criminal or delinquent behavior.”

D) and E) are wrong because of an incorrect idiom. Never say “attributed as.” Something can only be “attributed to” someone or something.

I am still a little confused in this sentence how "in attributing.." is modifying The perpetrators and not defence attorneys, it would be kind of you if you can elaborate more on that and help me understand to spot the problem?

Also when we turn the sentence to IF then how it starts modifying defense attorneys and not perpetrators?

"but" begins a new clause, with a new subject and a new predicate. So "in attributing" modifies the subject of this clause, which is "perpetrators".
Intern
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 35
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2010, 08:11
This question is from OG12. . it is a modifier question referenced in the MGMAT Sentence correction book. .wish I could remember the number
Manager
Status: Current MBA Student
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 360 [0], given: 210

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

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2011, 16:22

79. 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,
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3706
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 736

Kudos [?]: 5757 [2] , given: 322

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

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2011, 01:10
2
KUDOS
This is primarily an issue of mis-modification and then that of the idiom ‘attributed to’ or ‘attributed as’

The mis-modification relates to who or what the modifier phrase ‘in attributing criminal or
delinquent behavior to some food allergy’
is modifying- the perpetrators or the defence attorneys? - Please note that 'the perpetrators' is not underlined and it is the attorneys who are attributing. So any choice that has the modifier ‘in attributing x to’ perpetrators is logically wrong. So A, C and E are gone at first sight.

Between B and D, which use a passive voice construction to circumvent the modification problem, B is better because it uses the correct idiom 'attributed to' rather than the unidiomatic 'attributed as'
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 72
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

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

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2011, 20:39
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 285
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: HBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 190 [0], given: 13

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

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2011, 21:49
The verb Attribute will take 'to' Hence,D and E are eliminated
The sentence takes the form - If X is done Y is done.
Both verbs- atrribute and tell should be in the same verb form- attributed, told or attributing, telling.
Hence , B
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 72
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

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

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2011, 22:24
but my understanding was that "if" is used only in Cause-Effect situations in GMAT.

and option B doesn't look like that type...
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3706
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 736

Kudos [?]: 5757 [2] , given: 322

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

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2011, 00:25
2
KUDOS
This is in fact a test of modification and idiom. The modifier phrase starting with 'in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy' wrongly modifies the perpetrators, while it should modify the defense attorneys. So let us remove any choice having the ‘in attributing' modifier. A, C and E are out in one stroke.
Between B and D, D faults on idiom. 'Attributed as' is wrong. B uses attributed to and is the right choice
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 72
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

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

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2011, 22:27
Hi daagh,

The explanations is most convincing, but is the use of "if" fine in this sentence.
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3706
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 736

Kudos [?]: 5757 [0], given: 322

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

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2011, 23:44
We have mostly seen the subordinate conjunction ‘if’ being used alone in conditional clauses as part of the “If- then” combination. Here the sentence means to imply that “if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food, (then) the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.” In order to complicate matters for test takers, the word ‘then’ has been deliberately dropped, still keeping the intended meaning intact.

Another way of looking at it is to take that the word “if” is being used as an alternative to other subordinate conjunctions such as “because” or “since”, in which case, the use of "if" may have some glitch on usage but not on grammar.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 72
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

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

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2011, 23:49
Thanks for the explanation...
Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 152
GMAT Date: 10-21-2011
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 68 [1] , given: 15

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

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2011, 09:35
1
KUDOS
Quote:
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

Idiom - it should be 'but by attributing' instead of 'but in attributing' ---> eliminates A, C and E
Idiom - 'attributed to' and not 'attributed as' ---> eliminates D
_________________

"The best day of your life is the one on which you decide your life is your own. No apologies or excuses. No one to lean on, rely on, or blame. The gift is yours - it is an amazing journey - and you alone are responsible for the quality of it. This is the day your life really begins." - Bob Moawab

Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2011
Posts: 151
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V37
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 42

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

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2011, 04:46
ah i suck at idioms
Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2010
Posts: 148
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2011, 10:07
Does "allergy TO some food items" in option B make sense?
Intern
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Posts: 23
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 8

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

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2012, 12:21
Sorry for bumping up an old thread again. But I don't quite see how "in attributing" modifies perpetrators and not defense attorney's. I agree that the placement of the modifier is ambiguous but I would say it COULD modify both.

"In Attributing" modifies the subject of the sentence it modifies. The subject of the prior sentence is
"Defense Attorneys". So it COULD modify "Defense Attorneys". However, in the next sentence, "perpetrators" appears as the subject, so "attributing" COULD also modify the "perpetrators".

Based on this ambiguity I would rule out A,C,E. But I don't agree that it unambiguously modifies perpetrators rather than Defense Attorneys (from a grammatical point of view).

Can someone explain the flaw in my reasoning?

Thanks!
Manager
Joined: 11 Mar 2012
Posts: 97
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
GRE 1: 2170 Q800 V700
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 15

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

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2012, 10:30
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,

Manager
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 174
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.69
WE: Analyst (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 49 [3] , given: 13

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

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2012, 11:18
3
KUDOS
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

There is a modifier issue in the the original sentence. ". . . but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect . . ."

That part right there suggests that it's the perpetrators who are doing the "attributing," when really its the defense attorneys that attribute the behavior to food allergies. SO knowing that, you can eliminate all the choice with the inappropriate modifier (choices A, C, and E). That leaves B and D. D is incorrect because the proper structure when using "attribute" is "attribute X to Y," but D does "attribute X as Y"
Manager
Joined: 11 Mar 2012
Posts: 97
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
GRE 1: 2170 Q800 V700
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 15

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

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2012, 04:34
thanks Swoosh,

definitely clear now. it sometimes helps to take some time off and revisit the problems to understand how they work.

kudos!
Manager
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 174
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.69
WE: Analyst (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 13

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

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2012, 10:12
tsheshraj wrote:
thanks Swoosh,

definitely clear now. it sometimes helps to take some time off and revisit the problems to understand how they work.

kudos!

Thanks, yeah revisiting old problems is one of the highest value-adds in the studying process IMO
Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 223
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 223 [0], given: 7

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

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2012, 04:10
chandru42 wrote:
Attribute X(an effect ) to Y(a cause). correct idiomatic usage D & E are out

in attributing behavior is wrong in A & C it modifies the perpetrators

so B is the winner

How does in attributing modify perpetrator ??? please explain ...
_________________

The Best Way to Keep me ON is to give Me KUDOS !!!
If you Like My posts please Consider giving Kudos

Shikhar

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their   [#permalink] 25 Apr 2012, 04:10

Go to page   Previous    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