Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 02:02 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 02:02

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
SORT BY:
Kudos
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 5123
Own Kudos [?]: 4683 [1]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Status:In learning mode...
Posts: 156
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [1]
Given Kudos: 217
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Send PM
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63671 [1]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 5123
Own Kudos [?]: 4683 [1]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients miscond [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Tanchat wrote:
Dear Experts,

I don't understand the whole passage. Thus, I don't understand why "in attribute" is wrong (I understand that in attribute modifies the perpetrators).

Could anyone explain what each sentence actually means?

Thank you in advance


Hello Tanchat,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that in the event that criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to a food allergy, by a second entity, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

The use of "in attributing" is incorrect because the use of this phrase to modify "the perpetrators" incorrectly implies that the perpetrators, themselves, are attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, and as a result, they are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

To convey the intended meaning, we need a conditional statement, which "in attributing" does not form.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 29
Own Kudos [?]: 748 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
Hi daagh,

The explanations is most convincing, but is the use of "if" fine in this sentence.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 180
Own Kudos [?]: 332 [0]
Given Kudos: 23
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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!
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 May 2014
Posts: 94
Own Kudos [?]: 136 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Schools: YLP '18
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14823
Own Kudos [?]: 64928 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
Expert Reply
qwerty12321 wrote:
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.


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"
avatar
Tutor
Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Posts: 48
Own Kudos [?]: 222 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
Expert Reply
qwerty12321 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

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


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.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 May 2016
Posts: 122
Own Kudos [?]: 421 [0]
Given Kudos: 33
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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".
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3528 [0]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
Expert Reply
rocko911 wrote:
I always thought BUT and IF can not be used together , maybe redundant

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

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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Apr 2018
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 47
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 29
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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


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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 368
Own Kudos [?]: 43 [0]
Given Kudos: 530
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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


Understood the explanation, but could "attributing" refer to the subject of the previous clause?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Posts: 69
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
WE:Operations (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
can you pleaes explain what makes a and c wrong? GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep

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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2021
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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


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
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4946
Own Kudos [?]: 7628 [0]
Given Kudos: 215
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
Top Contributor
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
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2020
Posts: 82
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 109
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Send PM
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
it may have been commented already but some food allergy != an allergy to some food
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2020
Posts: 82
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 109
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Send PM
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond [#permalink]
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne