dcoolguy wrote:
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?
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?
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.
_________________
See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews
20 May 2022, 05:08
close
