Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 16:02 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 16:02
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
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,580
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,580
 [2]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 20 May 2022, 06:08
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
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?
Show more
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.

Quote:
Also what IF clause is doing here,
how If clause is correct.? can someone help me understand the meaning?
Show more
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.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [3]
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
 [3]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 20 May 2022, 18:33
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
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.
Show more
Hi dcoolguy,

That's correct. The perpetrators are told means that someone else is telling the perpetrators that they're not responsible for their actions. The first half of the sentence (defense attorneys have occasionally argued that...) is also similar, in the sense that it tells us that the attorneys are the ones saying something.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,787
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,787
 [1]
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 02 Jun 2022, 11:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
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?
Show more
You have to take into account the logic of the entire clause. Take another look:

Quote:
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
Because the perpetrators attribute criminal behavior to an allergy, the perpetrators are told that they're not responsible? Are they telling themselves that they're not responsible? Nah.

It makes far more sense to suggest that someone else is attributing the behavior to the allergy, and by doing so, communicates to the perpetrators that they're not responsible for what they've done. This is the meaning we get in (B).

I hope that clears things up!
User avatar
Tanchat
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Last visit: 20 Jun 2023
Posts: 222
Own Kudos:
20
Given Kudos: 139
Posts: 222
Kudos: 20
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 13 Jul 2022, 09:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
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 14 Jul 2022, 06:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Tanchat
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
Show more

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
mcepeci
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
Last visit: 30 Jun 2025
Posts: 20
Posts: 20
Kudos: 0
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 07 Sep 2022, 10:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Shouldn't the verb-ing modifier attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy modify the subject of the previous clause which is Defense attorney. The verb-ing modifier can also be modifying the verb argued in the previous clause by stating (how) " in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy",
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
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
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 08 Sep 2022, 09:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mcepeci
Shouldn't the verb-ing modifier attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy modify the subject of the previous clause which is Defense attorney. The verb-ing modifier can also be modifying the verb argued in the previous clause by stating (how) " in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy",
Show more
Hi mcepeci,

That rule isn't perfect, but the bigger issue is that you may be thinking about the so-called "comma -ing" structure, whereas what we see here is closer to "-ing comma" (preceded by a preposition).

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
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 09 Sep 2022, 05:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mcepeci
Shouldn't the verb-ing modifier attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy modify the subject of the previous clause which is Defense attorney. The verb-ing modifier can also be modifying the verb argued in the previous clause by stating (how) " in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy",
Show more
As AjiteshArun has pointed out, you are looking at the wrong clause.

The four clauses in the original sentence are:

i) Defense attorneys have occasionally argued
ii) that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested,
iii) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told
iv) that they are not responsible for their actions.

Notice that the present participial phrase (-ing modifier) is a part of the following clause:

in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told

So, this is the clause you should be focusing on.
User avatar
tanishkamishra
User avatar
Joined: 11 Dec 2022
Last visit: 16 Mar 2023
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 38
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 05 Feb 2023, 22:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi

I went through all the posts under this question and understood why the sentence is grammatically wrong and why is option B the correct answer choice. However, I am still not very clear about the intended meaning of the sentence.
Can anyone help me out by explaining the intended meaning of the sentence in simple words?

Thankyou in advance!
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
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
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 07 Feb 2023, 07:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tanishkamishra
Hi

I went through all the posts under this question and understood why the sentence is grammatically wrong and why is option B the correct answer choice. However, I am still not very clear about the intended meaning of the sentence.
Can anyone help me out by explaining the intended meaning of the sentence in simple words?

Thankyou in advance!
Show more

Hello tanishkamishra,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the intended meaning of this sentence is that defense attorneys have argued that their clients took the action they are on trial for only because they had a reaction to something they consumed, but if we accept that criminal actions can be blamed on a food allergy, the perpetrators would take this to mean they had done nothing wrong.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,787
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,787
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 13 Feb 2023, 11:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tanishkamishra
Hi

I went through all the posts under this question and understood why the sentence is grammatically wrong and why is option B the correct answer choice. However, I am still not very clear about the intended meaning of the sentence.

Can anyone help me out by explaining the intended meaning of the sentence in simple words?

Thankyou in advance!
Show more

Here's the full sentence with the OA inserted:

Quote:
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.
Show more
A client's "misconduct" is whatever the client did to break the law. For example, let's say that Tim drove his car across his neighbor's lawn and destroyed some of his neighbor's property. Tim now finds himself in court, facing jail time for reckless driving, plus financial penalties to pay for the damage.

Tim's defense attorney might argue that Tim only did this because he was having a reaction to the Firecracker Burrito he had just eaten at Taco Bell. So maybe Tim shouldn't have to pay for the damage or go to jail. After all, it was the burrito's fault!

In this situation, the attorney's argument rests on the notion that Tim's criminal (or delinquent) behavior isn't Tim's fault. Instead, the food (or the allergy to that food) is at fault. If the judge and jury buy that argument, then they are essentially saying, "You're right, attorney... this wasn't Tim's fault, it was the food allergy's fault." And if the food allergy is responsible for Tim's driving mishap, then Tim is not responsible.

In other words, attributing the mishap to the food allergy effectively says: "Hey Tim, don't worry... this wasn't your fault!" In other words, if they attribute the mishap to his allergies, they're telling Tim that he is not responsible for his actions.

I hope that makes sense!
User avatar
SKGM
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2022
Last visit: 17 Sep 2024
Posts: 20
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 34
Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q40 V28
GMAT 1: 570 Q40 V28
Posts: 20
Kudos: 10
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 13 Jun 2023, 01:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dinesh654
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?
Show more


I am shamelessly copying daagh for your 1st question:
This is primarily an issue of mis-modification.
The mis-modification relates to who or what the modifier phrase ‘in attributing criminal or
delinquent behavior to some food allergy’ is modifying- the perpetrators or the defence attorneys? - Please note that 'the perpetrators' is not underlined and it is the attorneys who are attributing. So any choice that has the modifier ‘in attributing x to’ perpetrators is logically wrong.

Regarding your If clause:

As mikemcgarry points out
The word "if" introduces a subordinate clause that is inside the second independent clause starts with (,) AND BUT. 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")
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,830
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,830
Kudos: 986
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond 22 Oct 2025, 20:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts