Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ miscond

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

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",

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.

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.

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!

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

Here's the full sentence with the OA inserted:


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!

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")