Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond

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.

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.

Hi

When a verb+ing modifier appears before a clause, it modifies the subject of the following cause. For example:

Raising his voice in fury, John hurled a volley of abuses at the mechanic.

Who did the "raising"? The subject of the following clause - John.

Similarly, in this sentence, the verb+ing modifier "attributing criminal or..." appears before the clause "the perpetrators are in effect...". Applying the same rule shown above, the modifier "attributing" must modify "perpetrators". This implies that the perpetrators are the ones who are attributing criminal behavior to food allergy, which is illogical in the context of the sentence. Hence options (A) and (C) are incorrect.

Hope this helps.

Hi shenwenlim,

Options A and C (and E) use the phrase in attributing. When we put that phrase at the beginning of a clause, we must make sure that the noun that starts the clause (the subject of that clause) is the one that is actually doing the attributing.

In attributing X to Y, ________ ⟵ whatever goes here has to be the thing that is doing the attributing.

The problem is that the sentence already has the perpetrators in that position in the portion that is not underlined. So we end up with

In attributing X to Y, the perpetrators

Since the perpetrators are not the ones who are doing the attributing (the defense attorneys are the ones who are actually doing the attributing), we can safely remove A, C, and E.

Yes, the issue is exactly what you have outlined, that it's not logical that, by attributing the behavior to some food allergy, perpetrators are told something by someone else.


The "if" clause "if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food" presents a condition under which "the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions."

In other words, the sentence conveys that, if A occurs, B occurs.

The truth is that using an "if" clause is not ideal there. Another type of construction, such as "through attribution of ..., the perpetrators are in effect told ..." or "if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed ..., the perpetrators will be in effect told ..." would better connect the two ideas, but the idea that under a certain condition a certain event occurs is logical enough.

@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

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

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

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

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;

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.

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.

Manisha_1991

"If" is indeed used to create conditional structures: If X, then Y. What that "Y" looks like depends a great deal on the "X" we begin with:

If that was a joke, it was a poor one.
If you are hungry, we can eat now.
If you helped me, I would be grateful.

We only need "would" in the second part of the construction if we are talking about a hypothetical situation that has not in fact happened yet. In the original Q, the condition in question (criminal behavior is attributed to an allergy) has actually happened. In this case, "if" works much the way as "when."

Hi lakshya14,

The problem is that the sentence "breaks" at but. Does this post help?

khert87
The short version is that there is no such absolute rule. -Ing modifiers preceded by a comma are most commonly adverbial, but we have to use the overall structure and meaning to determine which part of the sentence they are modifying.

In this case, it may help to strip out all the modifiers and look at the sentence core (always a good idea, really):

Attorneys have occasionally argued that misconduct stemmed (from a reaction*), but the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible.

Clearly we lose a lot of meaning here, but we now better see how the sentence is built. The conjunction "but" links two otherwise independent clauses: "Attorneys have argued . . . " and "The perpetrators are told . . . " Since the modifier in question is after the linking word "but," it has to apply to the second clause. Technically, it isn't modifying "perpetrators" but rather the verb "are told." However, when we modify a verb, we have to be talking about whoever is doing the action, so it comes to the same thing. For that reason, when we have a modifier that precedes the clause it modifies, we can usually get away with treating it as a noun modifier applying to the subject, even if that's not strictly accurate.


*(I have "from a reaction" in parentheses because it is technically an adverbial modifier for "stemmed," but that verb is hard to read by itself: what would "misconduct stemmed" mean without the modifier?)

faat99
Perhaps not, but is there enough of a distinction for you to rule out an answer on that basis alone? How would you do that?

faat99
Hmm, but "not the same" doesn't tell you which choice, if either, is wrong. You could just as easily say that BC are out, or say that although the options are slightly different, both make acceptable meanings. If the answer isn't clearly wrong, don't cut it.