It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 04:00

### 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 clients' miscond

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 97

Kudos [?]: 56 [1], given: 24

Location: Malawi
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Non-Profit and Government)
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2013, 04:05
1
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (01:06) correct 47% (01:16) wrong based on 518 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from 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 some food allergy
(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

Kudos [?]: 56 [1], given: 24

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 1436

Kudos [?]: 1309 [0], given: 819

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.35
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2013, 05:44
nikhil.jones.s wrote:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from 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 some food allergy
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

I am able to remove the choices ACD, but of out remaining choices, i picked E.
_________________

ISB Preparation Kit | GMAT Debrief

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 1309 [0], given: 819

Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 868

Kudos [?]: 1411 [1], given: 543

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

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2013, 05:55
1
KUDOS
This is an OG question not from Manhattan. The problem is here we need a if- then condition for this sentence to work

if the behaviour is because of food allergy, then perpetrators are not responsible for their actions.

As per E the food allergy as the cause of criminal behaviour switches the roles... also its passive voice
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Last edited by fozzzy on 10 Jun 2013, 05:57, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 1411 [1], given: 543

VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1120

Kudos [?]: 2327 [1], given: 219

Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2013, 05:56
1
KUDOS
ankurgupta03 wrote:
I am able to remove the choices ACD, but of out remaining choices, i picked E.

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from 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.

It's not easy to pick an answer just by looking at the underlined portion, here how the sentence continues is crucial.

"but in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior, the perpetrators are in effect told" is not a correct construct.

On the other hand, option B is a correct "modifer" of the situation:

"but if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told"
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Kudos [?]: 2327 [1], given: 219

Intern
Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 8

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

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GPA: 3.3
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2013, 22:53
Hi, can someone please explain the difference between choices B and D.

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

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127

Kudos [?]: 3478 [0], given: 123

Location: United States
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2013, 00:45
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Ace99 wrote:
Hi, can someone please explain the difference between choices B and D.

Hi Ace99

Correct idiom: attribute X TO Y
Wrong idiom: attribute X AS a cause of Y

You can read Manhattan GMAT - Sentence correction, page 148, Idiom part.

Hope that helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Kudos [?]: 3478 [0], given: 123

Intern
Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 8

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

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GPA: 3.3
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2013, 02:36
Thanks for clarifying the error. it helped.

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

Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 234

Kudos [?]: 405 [0], given: 63

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

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2013, 06:12
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients' misconduct stemmed from 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 ing modifer is incorrect since its modifying perpetuators. I have a question regarding comma + but in option B its playing a role of DC?

Kudos [?]: 405 [0], given: 63

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2311

Kudos [?]: 9040 [1], given: 335

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

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2013, 02:01
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
nelz007 wrote:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients' misconduct stemmed from 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 ing modifer is incorrect since its modifying perpetuators. I have a question regarding comma + but in option B its playing a role of DC?

Hi Nelson,

Yes. You are absolutely right that the Verb-ing modifier is incorrect in modifying “perpetrators” and so is incorrect in the original sentence.

I understand your query regarding Option B (the Correct Option). Let me write the whole sentence using Option B.

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
o 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,
o the perpetrators are in effect told
 that they are not responsible for their actions.

Now as you have observed, “if criminal….to some food” is indeed a DC.

However you need to observe that this DC is properly connected to an IC (the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.)

This is similar to the way you considered the entire clause before the “Comma+But” as an IC.

(You didn’t say “that their clients…” is a DC, did you? You observed the IC “Defense attorneys…” before it, observed the connection (that) between them and concluded that the whole entity is an IC).

Remember that when proper connection is made, an IC + DC combination gives rise to a big IC.

So “If criminal…, the perpetrators…actions” is in fact an IC.

So there is nothing incorrect with the usage of “Comma + But” in Option B.

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Krishna
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Kudos [?]: 9040 [1], given: 335

Intern
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 44

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

12 Oct 2013, 18:02
egmat wrote:
nelz007 wrote:
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
that their clients' misconduct stemmed from 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 ing modifer is incorrect since its modifying perpetuators. I have a question regarding comma + but in option B its playing a role of DC?

Hi Nelson,

Yes. You are absolutely right that the Verb-ing modifier is incorrect in modifying “perpetrators” and so is incorrect in the original sentence.

I understand your query regarding Option B (the Correct Option). Let me write the whole sentence using Option B.

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
o 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,
o the perpetrators are in effect told
 that they are not responsible for their actions.

Now as you have observed, “if criminal….to some food” is indeed a DC.

However you need to observe that this DC is properly connected to an IC (the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.)

This is similar to the way you considered the entire clause before the “Comma+But” as an IC.

(You didn’t say “that their clients…” is a DC, did you? You observed the IC “Defense attorneys…” before it, observed the connection (that) between them and concluded that the whole entity is an IC).

Remember that when proper connection is made, an IC + DC combination gives rise to a big IC.

So “If criminal…, the perpetrators…actions” is in fact an IC.

So there is nothing incorrect with the usage of “Comma + But” in Option B.

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Krishna

Hi Krishna,

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10120

Kudos [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2017, 22:26
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 484

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 342

Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2017, 20:26
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from 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 some food allergy
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

Manhattan Verbal GMAT clearly states that IF is used for condition. Here it does not sound like condition.
why A is wrong anD B correct?

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 342

Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2015
Posts: 164

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 101

Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V26
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2017, 23:43
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from 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 some food allergy
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

Manhattan Verbal GMAT clearly states that IF is used for condition. Here it does not sound like condition.
why A is wrong anD B correct?

in this question meaning plays a big role .

In option A,C and E, the modifier " in attributing behavior......," is wrongly modifying the perpetrators.Because the Defense attorneys have occasionally argued to attribute allergies to behavior but not the perpetrators.

And my friend, if you look at B and D you ar gonna find out that they actually project a hypothetical situation.

If criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to some food allergy,(hypothetically speaking) (then) the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

Hope it is clear.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 101

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4289

Kudos [?]: 7905 [2], given: 364

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2017, 02:00
2
KUDOS
Top Contributor
The catch in this question is that the non-underlined modified noun is the 'perpetrators' and they do not, however, attibute but the advocates. Therefore we have to find a head that suits the cap. That is the reason that choices A, C, and E are instantly out.
Now between B and D: 'attribute' always takes 'to' as a matter of idioms. D, using 'attributed as' is unidiomatic. B is the choice.
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 7905 [2], given: 364

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' miscond   [#permalink] 27 Aug 2017, 02:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by