GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 23:03

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

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 252
Location: Hanoi
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2004, 06:48
23
176
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (01:06) correct 59% (01:24) wrong based on 5858 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"

Most Helpful Expert Reply
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
G
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2629
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Apr 2012, 13:29
23
10
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
_________________












| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 41
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2004, 07:12
36
10
D and E are out because they do not use a right idiom (to attribute x to y).
A and C are out because they sound like perpetrators are the ones who attribute behavior to allergy. I think the ones who attribute behavior to allergy in the SC are attorneys.
General Discussion
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4234
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2004, 06:52
1
2
I would go with A for conciseness.
B's "to an allergy to some food" seems wordy to me
C) relative pronoun "that" is not required and actually makes it wordier
D and E are redundant for when you attribute X to Y, you don't need to say "attribute X as the cause of Y"
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 214
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2004, 06:55
2
2
I believe it's B

A,C,D are all wrong because they use "in attributing" without specifying WHO is attributing
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 252
Location: Hanoi
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2004, 07:01
1
OlegC wrote:
I believe it's B

A,C,D are all wrong because they use "in attributing" without specifying WHO is attributing


Sorry. But in other choices, the use of "if" is awful
_________________

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4938
Location: Singapore
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2004, 18:25
3
1
by attributing, not in attributing, so (A), (C), (E) are out.

(D) is out, food allergy is attributed to be the cause, not as the cause
(B) for me.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 862
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2005, 16:14
11
10
I wanted to pour in my explaination for this question just to consolidate in my mind:

Idiom Usage:
1. One attributes X, an effect, to Y, a cause
2. X (an effect) is attributed to Y.

(D) : wrong Idiom usage
(E) : wrong Idiom usage
(C): Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food, the perpeptrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

Now lets see Independent sentence starting with but:
in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food, the perpeptrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions

"in attributing..." : Prepositional Phrase is modifying immediate Noun i.e. Perpetrators and thus conveying wrong meaning. So, this choice is wrong.

(A): wrong : same as (C).
(B): Correct of the lot.


However, it is quite confusing/awkward to use "but" alongwith "if".

What do you guys think?
CEO
CEO
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3484
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2008, 10:54
For me, B is concise and 'an allergy to some food' is less ambiguous than 'some food allergy'.
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 735
Location: Oxford
Schools: Oxford'10
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2008, 11:00
3
1
to add to walker's explanation, "Attributed To" is the correct idiom here.

also the choices starting with "in attributing.." make it sound like the perpetrators are doing the "attributing"
CEO
CEO
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3484
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2008, 11:10
Thanks Buffdaddy, I compared B and D rather than B and C... :?
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 52
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2008, 12:38
1
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.

Note - The conjuction 'but' is followed by an independent clause

(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy - is a modifier and the noun following it should be the attorneys because it's the attorneys who are attributing criminal behavior to some food allergy, not the perpetrators.

(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 - also a modifier and has the same flaw as answer choice 'A'.

(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior - Idiom. Attributed to

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

Ans is B
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1257
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2010, 13:23
4
I also got the OA wrong. However, after reading the sentence several times I think I understood what the it is trying to say.

Lets break the sentence in 2 parts.

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested.

If criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food then the perpetrators [culprits] are told that they are not responsible for their actions.

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 --> this modifier should modify 'attorneys' not 'perpetrators'
(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food --> this is saying that if criminal behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food then the culprits are told that they are not responsible for their actions. Also, 'attributed to' is the correct idiom.
(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 --> wrong idiom
(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior --> same as A
Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4530
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jan 2011, 02:10
3
2
This is primarily an issue of mis-modification and then that of the idiom ‘attributed to’ or ‘attributed as’

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. So A, C and E are gone at first sight.

Between B and D, which use a passive voice construction to circumvent the modification problem, B is better because it uses the correct idiom 'attributed to' rather than the unidiomatic 'attributed as'
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4530
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Mar 2011, 01:25
2
This is in fact a test of modification and idiom. The modifier phrase starting with 'in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy' wrongly modifies the perpetrators, while it should modify the defense attorneys. So let us remove any choice having the ‘in attributing' modifier. A, C and E are out in one stroke.
Between B and D, D faults on idiom. 'Attributed as' is wrong. B uses attributed to and is the right choice
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Mar 2011, 23:27
Hi daagh,

The explanations is most convincing, but is the use of "if" fine in this sentence.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4530
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Mar 2011, 00:44
We have mostly seen the subordinate conjunction ‘if’ being used alone in conditional clauses as part of the “If- then” combination. Here the sentence means to imply that “if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food, (then) the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.” In order to complicate matters for test takers, the word ‘then’ has been deliberately dropped, still keeping the intended meaning intact.

Another way of looking at it is to take that the word “if” is being used as an alternative to other subordinate conjunctions such as “because” or “since”, in which case, the use of "if" may have some glitch on usage but not on grammar.
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 157
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.69
WE: Analyst (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2012, 12:18
3
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

There is a modifier issue in the the original sentence. ". . . but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect . . ."

That part right there suggests that it's the perpetrators who are doing the "attributing," when really its the defense attorneys that attribute the behavior to food allergies. SO knowing that, you can eliminate all the choice with the inappropriate modifier (choices A, C, and E). That leaves B and D. D is incorrect because the proper structure when using "attribute" is "attribute X to Y," but D does "attribute X as Y"
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 192
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Apr 2012, 05:10
chandru42 wrote:
Attribute X(an effect ) to Y(a cause). correct idiomatic usage D & E are out


in attributing behavior is wrong in A & C it modifies the perpetrators

so B is the winner



How does in attributing modify perpetrator ??? please explain ...
_________________

The Best Way to Keep me ON is to give Me KUDOS !!!
If you Like My posts please Consider giving Kudos

Shikhar

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 24
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.3
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2012, 20:43
Thanks Shraddha for such an lucid example. The official explanation wasn't clear to me. Can you please discuss a few more lines about the properties of -ing form when used as a modifier?
Re: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond &nbs [#permalink] 01 May 2012, 20:43

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 45 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.