GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

It is currently 26 May 2018, 01:17

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 clients’ miscond

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

Hide Tags

Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
S
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2502
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2012, 20:57
Dear sub3108,

We have the Verb-ing modifier in the free trial of e-GMAT. Just register on e-GMAT and take the concept. The concept will explain the various ways in which the verb-ing modifier can be used.

-Rajat
_________________












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

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 29
Location: Venezuela
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.07
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2012, 13:51
1
This post received
KUDOS
@maybeam


The defense attorneys are attributing bad behavior to a food allergy. Logically, the perpetrators are not attributing bad behavior. Therefore A, C and E are out!

The underlined portion of the sentence is modifying something AFTER itself, because this modifier is after the word "but." This modifier is part of the second half of the sentence.

Secondly, the sentence is about attorneys attributing bad behavoir, not attribuiting food allergies. So D is also out! Leaving B as the correct answer.
Defense attorneys have argued that misconduct stemmed from...., but if behavior is attributed to ....., the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible for ...

Cheers
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4257
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2012, 14:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
After eliminating A,C and E for mismodification, between B and D, D can be straight away dropped D for using the wrong idiom attribute as, while B triumphs because of using the correct idiom attribute to
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 303
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2012, 17:33
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
We can quickly eliminate (A), (C), and (E). Each attributes the 'attributing' to the perpetrators. However, it is the defense attorneys who do the 'attributing.' You attribute something 'to'. Just like that we arrive at answer (B).

(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
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep


Image

Image

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Posts: 8
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2012, 12:33
Suppose one of the options says, "by attributing ________ behaviour to an allergy to some food". Is this correct?
Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4257
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2012, 08:28
No. It will not be. There is no difference between ‘in attributing’ and ‘by attributing’. Both are prepositional phrases and do neither alter the structure nor the logic. As long as the modified noun is not underlined, then we have to the change the modifier to suit the perpetrators.
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 274
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2014, 14:12
egmat wrote:
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



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!
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2012
Posts: 41
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Nonprofit
GMAT Date: 09-13-2013
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jun 2014, 09:26
OA: B

The original sentence contains a misplaced modifier. The modifying phrase (in attributing...) incorrectly describes perpetrators when it should describe defense attorneys. The correct idiom in the active voice is one attributes x (an effect) to y (a cause). In the passive voice, x (the effect) is attributed to y (the cause). The best way to correct the sentence is to transform the modifying phrase into a subordinate clause that uses the idiom correctly: criminal or delinquent behavior (x) is attributed to (verb phrase) an allergy to some food (y).
_________________

Remember that potential unused turns into pain. So dedicate yourself to expressing your best.

Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
S
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2502
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2014, 09:45
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
russ9 wrote:


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!



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
_________________












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

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: suffer now and live forever as a champion!!!
Joined: 01 Sep 2013
Posts: 135
Location: India
Dheeraj: Madaraboina
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2015, 07:29
1
This post received
KUDOS
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;
Retired Moderator
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 871
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 clients’ miscond [#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.

1 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
B
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 227
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 May 2016
Posts: 164
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#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".
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 280
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#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 :) [
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 974
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.5
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#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."

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Status: Aiming MBA!!
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 141
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.75
WE: Web Development (Consulting)
Reviews Badge
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 28 Nov 2017
Posts: 99
Location: Uzbekistan
Premium Member
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Apr 2018, 22:51
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


If we reverse the parts of the second IC, it will be much easier to find the correct answer.

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but 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.

So the correct answer is C.
_________________

Kindest Regards!
Tulkin.

Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond   [#permalink] 09 Apr 2018, 22:51

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 37 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.