Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 13:36 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 13:36
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|                           
avatar
Manisha_1991
avatar
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Last visit: 18 May 2021
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 15
Kudos: 2
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 29 Sep 2020, 08:29
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.


(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
Show more

Please help in understanding the usage of if in the sentence, my understanding is whenever "if" is used in a sentence it leads to a conditional construct
egmat daagh
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 30 Sep 2020, 00:54
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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."
User avatar
lakshya14
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Last visit: 27 Jul 2022
Posts: 360
Own Kudos:
45
Given Kudos: 529
Posts: 360
Kudos: 45
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 04 Nov 2020, 13:52
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

Understood the explanation, but could "attributing" refer to the subject of the previous clause?
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
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
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 04 Nov 2020, 19:50
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
lakshya14
Understood the explanation, but could "attributing" refer to the subject of the previous clause?
Show more
Hi lakshya14,

The problem is that the sentence "breaks" at but. Does this post help?
avatar
soondoobu
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Last visit: 17 Aug 2022
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 3
WE:Operations (Manufacturing)
Posts: 65
Kudos: 14
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond Updated on: 26 May 2021, 18:06
Originally posted by soondoobu on 18 Jan 2021, 20:16.
Last edited by soondoobu on 26 May 2021, 18:06, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
can you pleaes explain what makes a and c wrong? GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
svasan05
User avatar
CrackVerbal Representative
Joined: 02 Mar 2019
Last visit: 24 Feb 2023
Posts: 269
Own Kudos:
302
 [2]
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 269
Kudos: 302
 [2]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 22 Jan 2021, 13:22
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shenwenlim
can you pleaes explain what makes a and c wrong?
Show more

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.
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 26 May 2021, 19:24
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shenwenlim
can you pleaes explain what makes a and c wrong? GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep
Show more
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.
avatar
khert87
avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2021
Last visit: 15 Jul 2021
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 27 May 2021, 06:59
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

I was confused about the verb-ing modifier and exactly what it modified. I had read this rule from an expert reply to another question "When a verb-ing modifier is preceded by a comma, it always modifies the entire preceding clause. The verb-ing modifier denotes an action and this action must make sense with the subject of the preceding clause". I realize even then, it would be modifying the previous clause and not just the defense attorney's who are doing the attributing as the sentence is logically trying to imply. But is there a more steadfast rule for these verb-ing modifiers? Does the fact that "but in" comes between "attributing" and the comma change mean that "attributing" can't modify the previous clause and must modify the subject of the preceding clause? Or is it because the first clause is an independent clause and the middle clause is a dependent clause that is dependent on the following independent clause, so the modifier in the dependent clause modifies the subject of the independent clause that it depends on?

GMATNinja
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 29 May 2021, 15:16
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?)
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,844
Own Kudos:
8,945
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,844
Kudos: 8,945
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 24 Nov 2021, 18:38
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 “in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy” is referring to the action of attributing. Here, it seems like the perpetrators are attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy; however, since the defense attorneys are doing the arguing, they are attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy. This option confuses the meaning.

(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food Correct use of the idiom "attributed to"

(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 "Attributed as" is incorrect idiomatic usage

(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior Same as A

- Nitha Jay
avatar
faat99
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2020
Last visit: 21 Mar 2022
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 108
Location: United Kingdom
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Posts: 76
Kudos: 18
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 28 Dec 2021, 03:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
it may have been commented already but some food allergy != an allergy to some food
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 29 Dec 2021, 23:24
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
avatar
faat99
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2020
Last visit: 21 Mar 2022
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 108
Location: United Kingdom
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Posts: 76
Kudos: 18
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 30 Dec 2021, 14:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey Dmitry, not sure if right:

I was thinking "an allergy to some food" (one allergy) is not the same as "some food allergy" (multiple allergies) - so A,D out.

others have been discussed widely already:
- attributed as = wrong idiom, E out
- B&C effectively is the same, but C looks like a preposition modifier incorrectly modifying perpetrators. So B left.
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 30 Dec 2021, 18:55
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
avatar
Ccccc1111111
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2020
Last visit: 17 May 2023
Posts: 25
Given Kudos: 270
Posts: 25
Kudos: 0
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 16 Feb 2022, 19:22
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
= when the perpetrators attributed criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
1. wrong subject
* not the perpetrators attributed criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
* "Defense attorneys" attributed criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy

(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food (OA)

(C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
= when the perpetrators attributed that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
1. wrong subject
* not the perpetrators attributed .....
* "Defense attorneys" attributed ....
AND
2. two meaning
in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
IT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SB ATTRIBUTE BAD BEHAVIOR TO ALLERGY
in attributing (behavior that is criminal or delinquent) to (an allergy to some food)
BUT IN THIS SENTENCE CAN ALSO MEAN
in attributing behavior (that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy) to some food
TO FOOD?!


(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
3. redundancy
"some food allergy" is fine.
But "is attributed to sth" / "as the cause of"
These two are the same meaning. Redundancy!

(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
= when the perpetrators attributed a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
1. wrong subject
* not the perpetrators attributed .....
* "Defense attorneys" attributed ....
ALSO
3. redundancy
'attribute sth to sth" /"as the cause of"
These two are the same meaning. Redundancy!




overall

(A)(C)(E) WRONG SUBJECT
(C) TWO MEANING
(D)(E) REDUNDANCY
User avatar
Shivanshnagi1102
User avatar
Joined: 21 Nov 2021
Last visit: 12 Mar 2024
Posts: 7
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 7
Kudos: 0
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 13 Mar 2022, 07:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D and E are redundant (attribute - cause by)
A and C "in attributing" is acting as a modifier for perpetrators
B is correct "attributed to"
User avatar
Flyingabhi
User avatar
Joined: 12 Apr 2021
Last visit: 06 Nov 2022
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 13
Kudos: 7
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 01 May 2022, 19:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I have a doubt.

In the initial part it is explained that defence attorneys are attributing the behaviour to food allergy.

So isn't the meaning clear that the subject is same for the second part(underlined portion).

If i read this as:
Defence attorneys do something, but in doing so, something happens.

Please help.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 02 May 2022, 04:52
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Flyingabhi
I have a doubt.

In the initial part it is explained that defence attorneys are attributing the behaviour to food allergy.

So isn't the meaning clear that the subject is same for the second part(underlined portion).

If i read this as:
Defence attorneys do something, but in doing so, something happens.

Please help.

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

Hello Flyingabhi,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of the "comma + conjunction ("but" in this sentence,)" construction indicates that the clause that follows is an independent one; thus, the modifier phrase "in attributing..." modifies the subject of the following clause, not that of the preceding clause.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
avatar
Varane
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2022
Last visit: 16 Dec 2022
Posts: 66
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 471
Posts: 66
Kudos: 6
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 06 May 2022, 06:24
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 put 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

What is this verbing modifier referred to in grammar? Is it a Verbal? If yes then gerund? Participle? I am confused. Can you please clear it out.

Also shouldn't there be an action after , but since but is a conjunction that joins independant clauses. Hence the options which has 'is' as the verb are better and out of them the one which uses attributed to wins.

Kindly guide and correct me here.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Dinesh654
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Last visit: 11 Aug 2024
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
9
 [1]
Given Kudos: 217
Status:In learning mode...
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 155
Kudos: 9
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 20 May 2022, 05:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello experts,

everyone is saying that in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy ,is modifying the subject " the perpetrators" and hence, illogical.

but perpetrators can attribute their criminal behavior to some food allergy to defend themselves.

Or is it the reason that in attributing...... is modifying "are told"

someone else is telling the perpetrators that that they are not responsible for their actions. hence, they are not themselves attributing the behavior to the allergy, someone else is.

Am I correct?

Also what IF clause is doing here,
how If clause is correct.? can someone help me understand the meaning?
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts