Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 22:59 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 22:59
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
705-805 Level|   Adjectives and Adverbs|   Grammatical/Rhetorical Construction|   Idioms/Diction/Redundancy|   Modifiers|                           
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
 [3]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
 [3]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 17 Sep 2013, 02:01
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nelz007
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?
Show more

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
User avatar
russ9
User avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Last visit: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 174
Own Kudos:
400
Given Kudos: 23
Posts: 174
Kudos: 400
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 18 Apr 2014, 14:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat
Hi Shikhar,

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.


In the underlined portion of the sentence, the verb-ing modifier “in attributing…” is modifying the subject of the following clause which is “the perpetrators”. This suggests that the perpetrators perform the action of “attributing” which is illogical.
Let’s take simple examples to see how this modifier is functioning.

Reading from the red book, grandmother put the children to sleep.

Here, the verb-ing modifier is “reading”. So, who did the action of reading? Grandmother. Since “grandmother” is the subject of the following clause, modifier “reading” is correctly modifying “grandmother”.

Now read this one.

Reading the book, the children were out to sleep by grandmother.

This sentence is not correct because the subject of the clause is now “the children” and they certainly did not do the action of “reading”.

In the same way, “perpetrators” did not do the action of “attributing” the criminal behavior. They are the ones who showed criminal behavior. Now, the “perpetrators” falls in the non-underlined portion of the sentence. Hence we must choose an answer choice that correctly refers to perpetrators. Choices A, C, and E can be eliminated alone on the modifier basis. Choice D has the idiom issue. Choice B correctly and clearly conveys the logical intended meaning of the sentence.

Hope this helps.
Thanks
Shraddha
Show more


HI Shraddha,

Thanks for the explanation although I'm still a little confused.

You're saying that the modifier modifies the subject and not the object - correct? If that's the case, then your sentence that states "Reading the book, the children were out to sleep by grandmother." - The grandmother PUTS the children to sleep. In this case, isn't the grandmother the subject because she is DOING the action? If so, doesn't that means that the modifier "reading" is correctly related to the grandmother?

Also, why is "is attributed to" no longer modifying the perpetrators?

Thanks!
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
 [2]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
 [2]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 12 Jun 2014, 09:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
russ9



HI Shraddha,

Thanks for the explanation although I'm still a little confused.

You're saying that the modifier modifies the subject and not the object - correct? If that's the case, then your sentence that states "Reading the book, the children were out to sleep by grandmother." - The grandmother PUTS the children to sleep. In this case, isn't the grandmother the subject because she is DOING the action? If so, doesn't that means that the modifier "reading" is correctly related to the grandmother?

Also, why is "is attributed to" no longer modifying the perpetrators?

Thanks!
Show more


Hi russ9,

Thank you for the post. :)

As we know, when we change the voice of a sentence from active to passive, the subject of the sentence is also changed. Also, the subject of a sentence should always make sense with the verb.

ACTIVE VOICE
• He bought this book. (Subject- He; Object- this book)
Who bought this book?- He did.

PASSIVE VOICE
• This book was bought by him. (Subject- This book; Object- him)
What was bought by him?- This book was bought by him.

Similarly, in the given sentences:
• Reading from the red book, grandmother put the children to sleep.
Who put the children to sleep?- Grandmother did.
So, the subject for this sentence is ‘grandmother’. The modifier ‘reading from the red book’ modifies the subject correctly.

• Reading from the red book, the children were put to sleep by grandmother.
Who were put to sleep?- The children were put to sleep.
So, the subject for this sentence is ‘the children’. In this sentence, the modifier ‘reading from the red book’ incorrectly modifies ‘the children’.


Now, coming to the next question, ‘is attributed to’ is not modifying ‘the perpetrators’ since it is not a modifier now. It acts as a verb for the subject ‘criminal or delinquent behavior’ in option B.
In the original sentence, “in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy” is a modifying phrase and the verb-ing modifier modifies the subject of the following clause while in option B “if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food” is a clause in which ‘criminal or delinquent behavior’ is the subject and ‘is attributed’ is the verb.


Hope this helps! :)
Deepak
User avatar
qwerty12321
User avatar
Joined: 26 May 2014
Last visit: 26 Mar 2020
Posts: 94
Own Kudos:
140
 [18]
Given Kudos: 24
Schools: YLP '18
Schools: YLP '18
Posts: 94
Kudos: 140
 [18]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 26 Aug 2014, 11:31
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
16
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Defence 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

How can (B) be the answer?
In MGMAT SC it is written that "use only one connector at a time".
In (B) there are two connectors placed together: 'but' and 'if'.
Please explain.

Thanks
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,266
Own Kudos:
76,983
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,266
Kudos: 76,983
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 26 Aug 2014, 21:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
qwerty12321
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

How can (B) be the answer?
In MGMAT SC it is written that "use only one connector at a time".
In (B) there are two connectors placed together: 'but' and 'if'.
Please explain.

Thanks
Show more

There is a reason we tell you that you cannot do SC using "rules" - language is not Math. Depending on the structure of the sentence, rules change.

Note here that only 'but' is the connector (coordinating conjunction) that connects first part of the sentence with the second equal part of the sentence.
'If' is a subordinating conjunction connecting two unequal parts of the second part of the sentence.

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.

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
User avatar
qwerty12321
User avatar
Joined: 26 May 2014
Last visit: 26 Mar 2020
Posts: 94
Own Kudos:
140
Given Kudos: 24
Schools: YLP '18
Schools: YLP '18
Posts: 94
Kudos: 140
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 27 Aug 2014, 12:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Karishma

i have 3 doubts.

1. Are subordinating conjunctions connectors?
2. Can we use although and yet together in a sentence?
3. In this sentence is if functioning as a subordinating conjunction?

Thanks.
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,531
 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,531
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 28 Aug 2014, 12:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
qwerty12321
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

How can (B) be the answer?
In MGMAT SC it is written that "use only one connector at a time".
In (B) there are two connectors placed together: 'but' and 'if'.
Please explain.

Thanks
Show more
Dear qwerty12321,
I'm happy to help. :-) What MGMAT was talking about, in that passage was --- don't use more than one connector for the same clause, for the same purpose. For example, if I have a contrast word to emphasis some contrast, that's fine, but don't use two different contrast words for the same contrast.

This is very very different from the case of nesting one clause inside another. In this second case, two connecting words can appear right next to each other and be the connecting words for two different clauses. That's precisely what is happening in choice (B).

In choice (B), the first independent clause has a subordinate clause ("that their clients' ...") inside of it. The "but" joins the two independent clauses in the sentence, and the second independent clause begins immediate with a subordinate clause ("if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food"); that second independent clause also contains another subordinate clause at the end ("that they are not responsible for their actions"). This is one of the hardest things about GMAT SC sentences --- the different clauses and other structures can be stacked one inside the other like Russian dolls. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/nested-gra ... orrection/
Thus, in choice (B), the "but" joins the two independent clauses and the word "if" introduces a subordinate clause that happens to be nested inside the second independent clause. By chance, these two connecting words with two completely different roles just happen to be located next to each other. That's perfectly fine, and it's absolutely not what the MGMAT book was discussing in that passage.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,266
Own Kudos:
76,983
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,266
Kudos: 76,983
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 01 Sep 2014, 03:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
qwerty12321
Hi Karishma

i have 3 doubts.

1. Are subordinating conjunctions connectors?
2. Can we use although and yet together in a sentence?
3. In this sentence is if functioning as a subordinating conjunction?

Thanks.
Show more

1. Are subordinating conjunctions connectors?

Yes, they connect two parts of a sentence.

2. Can we use although and yet together in a sentence?
Actually, its use is frowned upon because you are already giving the contrast with one of although and yet but sometimes yet can reinforce. Its acceptability is declining.


3. In this sentence is if functioning as a subordinating conjunction?
Yes, it is. It connects "criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food" with "the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions"
User avatar
dheeraj24
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2013
Last visit: 26 Jul 2015
Posts: 85
Own Kudos:
347
 [1]
Given Kudos: 74
Status:suffer now and live forever as a champion!!!
Location: India
Dheeraj: Madaraboina
GPA: 3.5
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Posts: 85
Kudos: 347
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 09 Jan 2015, 07:29
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is one of the good Questions that i have came across.
We have a coordinating conjunction "but" here.
A modifier after 'but' implies modifier is working on second part of the sentence.
From the first part it is clear that Defense Attorneys are attributing something.
But from the underlined modifier "in attributing.............. , the perpetrators ............. " , the modifier is referring to perpetrators .
Hence A,C,E ----wrong
Correct idiom is "attribute X to Y"
Hence B;
User avatar
tarunk31
User avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Last visit: 20 Jul 2022
Posts: 181
Own Kudos:
462
 [1]
Given Kudos: 147
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Posts: 181
Kudos: 462
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 03 Sep 2015, 12:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
cg0588
How is the modifier in A and C modifying perpetrators? IMO, it seems to modify attorney...
Show more

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.
User avatar
stevekeating
User avatar
Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
224
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 48
Kudos: 224
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 21 Mar 2016, 19:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
qwerty12321
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

How can (B) be the answer?
In MGMAT SC it is written that "use only one connector at a time".
In (B) there are two connectors placed together: 'but' and 'if'.
Please explain.

Thanks
Show more

The short answer to your question is that there is no rule on the GMAT that a sentence cannot have the words “but” and “if” placed next to each other. This question is a form of dangling modifier question. Notice the part of the sentence beginning with “in attributing”. Ask yourself: “Who is doing the attributing?” It isn’t the perpetrators. Eliminate A, C and E. The idiomatic expression is “attributed to”. It is not “attributed as”. Eliminate D. B is correct.
User avatar
stevekeating
User avatar
Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
224
 [3]
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 48
Kudos: 224
 [3]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 05 Apr 2016, 22:38
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
You could think of the question as a dangling modifier question. “...in attributing…., “ the perpetrators…”. Do the perpetrators do the attributing? No. Eliminate A, C and E. “Attributed as” in D is incorrect. Only B remains. There is no problem with placing the words “but” and “if” next to each other in a sentence. It may have been more difficult to see the question as involving a dangling modifier, as the “ing” form does not start the sentence. However, using the dangling modifier rule saves you time.
User avatar
EBITDA
User avatar
Joined: 24 May 2016
Last visit: 29 May 2020
Posts: 119
Own Kudos:
459
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 119
Kudos: 459
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 18 Aug 2016, 09:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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".
User avatar
daagh
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 16 Oct 2020
Posts: 5,264
Own Kudos:
42,417
 [3]
Given Kudos: 422
Status: enjoying
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,264
Kudos: 42,417
 [3]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 27 Aug 2017, 02:00
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 11 Sep 2017, 08:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rocko911

I always thought BUT and IF can not be used together , maybe redundant
Show more
Hi rocko911, these are different words and not redundant. but establishes contrast, while if is a conditional construct.

Quote:
and if we are using BUT then a Independent clause would be coming next
Show more
A better way to remember this concept would be that there should be an Independent clause after but. Here, we do have an Independent clause after but:

the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Dependent and Independent clauses, its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
aceGMAT21
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Last visit: 01 May 2020
Posts: 83
Own Kudos:
239
 [1]
Given Kudos: 90
Status:Aiming MBA!!
Location: India
Schools: Rotman '20 Fisher '20 Kelley '20 NUS '20 ISB '19 Imperial '20
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.75
WE:Web Development (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Rotman '20 Fisher '20 Kelley '20 NUS '20 ISB '19 Imperial '20
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
Posts: 83
Kudos: 239
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 20 Oct 2017, 05:38
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bigtooth81
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.
Show more

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.
User avatar
DivyaKnows
User avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2018
Last visit: 26 Jun 2019
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 19
Kudos: 7
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 16 Apr 2019, 12:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Cases of verb+ing modifier where it modifies the noun that appears before it :

1)Amy skipped school, giving an excuse of headache to her mother. (Giving modifies Amy not Mother)
2)The startup closed its operations, citing political instability as a primary reason to the minister. (Citing modifies the Startup not the Minister)

Why can't in option A, "in attributing.." participle phrase not modify the Defense Attorney but as said by every
one modify the Perpetrators.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 16 Apr 2019, 19:36
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DivyaKnows
Cases of verb+ing modifier where it modifies the noun that appears before it :

1)Amy skipped school, giving an excuse of headache to her mother. (Giving modifies Amy not Mother)
2)The startup closed its operations, citing political instability as a primary reason to the minister. (Citing modifies the Startup not the Minister)

Why can't in option A, "in attributing.." participle phrase not modify the Defense Attorney but as said by every
one modify the Perpetrators.
Show more
We're looking at a slightly different structure here, but to understand why the options with in attributing are wrong, we should "break" the sentence at but.

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.

This is different from putting a ", attributing" immediately after the first half of the sentence.

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.
User avatar
mahi816
User avatar
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Last visit: 27 Oct 2020
Posts: 27
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 47
Posts: 27
Kudos: 4
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 01 May 2019, 00:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat

daagh

I am not able to understand the meaning of " the perpetrators are in effect told"

is it same as "the perpetrators in effect are told ".

what is the subject and verb here?

please help with this doubt
avatar
Mamunbd
avatar
Joined: 07 Feb 2017
Last visit: 15 Aug 2024
Posts: 1
Own Kudos:
9
 [2]
Given Kudos: 161
Location: Bangladesh
Posts: 1
Kudos: 9
 [2]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 23 Jul 2019, 00:32
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Here basically 2 issues have been tested.
MEANING and IDIOMS issues
# Meaning: it seems that attributing refer to the perpetrators, meaning Perpetrators are Attributing their behavior to a food allergy. Perpetrators aren't attributing rather defense attorneys are attributing. Eliminate options a,c,e

# Idioms: Correct Idioms---> attribute X to Y
attribute to = caused by
wrong Idioms----> attribute X as Y. eliminate options d,e.
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts