Sentence Correction

[Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb], but [if Subject Verb, (then) Subject Verb THAT subject verb].

Then:

Why is then missing in the right answer ?



Or is it the conditional ?

IF :

Is it not that when we use

1. IF-- it should be followed by Will/Would

which is conditional statement.




Here we are using IF, but there is no will/would.
Can some one throw me the light on this issue.

Stacey Koprince wrote:Received a PM asking me to reply. I'm sorry I'm just getting to your message now; I've been on vacation since 23 June.

There's no source cited here, but luckily I recognize this one. It has appeared in both OG and PowerPrep - and, because it appeared in PowerPrep, we're allowed to post and discuss.

varundaga05 asked me to address the misplaced modifier issue here. Generally speaking, there are rules about where to place modifiers in sentences. If the modifier is not placed correctly according to the rules, then the modifier is called a "misplaced modifier."

In this question, we've got a fairly complex sentence, so let's break it down a little bit. Here's the original:

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.

Here's the core: Defense attorneys have argued that misconduct stemmed (from X), but the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible (for Y).

[Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb], but [Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb].

There are several modifiers - the most important one is the long one in the middle - the one that is underlined: "in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy,"

We know that this is a modifier because it cannot stand alone as a sentence. It's modifying, or giving us additional info about, something else in the sentence. What is it modifying? Let's start with: it's modifying something AFTER itself, because this modifier is after the word "but." This modifier is part of the second half of the sentence.

Okay, so what is it modifying? The phrase is describing an action - someone or something is attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to a food allergy. Who or what is doing that? Logically, the defense attorneys are attributing bad behavior to a food allergy - that matches the info in the first half of the sentence. Hmm. But the second half doesn't mention the defense attorneys; it only mentions the perpetrators. Are the perpetrators attributing their own bad behavior to food allergies? I suppose that's possible, but that's not what the first part of the sentence says. The first part says that the defense attornies are doing this. So I've got a "bad" meaning here - a misplaced modifier.

So answer A doesn't work. Ditto C and E.

B and D change the structure of the sentence - what was a modifier is no longer a modifier. Now, it's part of the core. Here's B:

Defense attorneys have argued that misconduct stemmed (from X), but if behavior is attributed to Z, the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible (for Y).

[Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb], but [if Subject Verb, (then) Subject Verb THAT subject verb].

stacey,

perpetrators are told: here is 'perpetrators' the subject?

e,g: he was ordered by his boss to stay back. : is the subject 'he' or 'his boss'? Pl. clarify....I think it is 'his boss'

Stacey,

'I was asked to do so.'- In the example , 'I' is the subject. Pl. confirm.

Again, I was going thru the other post of yours. Please let me know if i am correct in my understanding or not.

e,g: Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor played often in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.

Your comments in reply to it:

The explanation could have been a bit more detailed. When you talk about an adverbial modifier (eg, a "comma -ing" modifier), you can talk about it modifying the subject of the preceding clause or the subject+verb of the preceding clause or the verb of the preceding clause. The point is that it does NOT modify only the object (or some other noun that is not the subject) of the preceding clause.

The preceding clause uses a pronoun as the subject ("it was revived by Segovia") and that pronoun refers to "classical guitar." So the modifier technically modifies "classical guitar revived by Segovia": that is, the classical guitar revived by Segovia was won over by the instrument's sound. The guitar... not Segovia. No good.

Since 'it was revived' implies 'classical guitar' was revived by S. Here classical guitar is the subject though the action is performed by S. Since the ' ,ing' modifier always modifies the subject (or verb) of the preceding clause, it can only modify classical guitar and not S.
Therefore it is wrong .
Had it been 'S revived classical guitar , having been won over by the instrument's sound...' , it would have been correct . Here S is the subject.
So the rule is : doesn't matter whether the modified clause is in active or passive , the ', ing' modifier always modifies the subject (or verb) of the preceding clause. Once you identify it , you are ok.
Will you confirm that whether the above is correct?
In the mean time I will again go back and analyze the original 'perpetrator' question with your latest comments and come back. It is just that I read all your posts regarding the ', ing' modifier and had the same question about subject - object which is a common link in both ', ing' and 'perpetrator' question. Hope it is ok.

Stacey, thanks a lot for the wonderful reply!

coming back to the original question for this chain:

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.

Here , in the second part 'the perpetrators' is the subject but as it is in the passive voice (perpetrators are told) , should that not automatically imply that someone else is doing the action and not the perpetrators.
As in 'I was told to do so': here 'I' is the subject but, it is implied that someone else is doing the action (told) as the statement is in passive voice . This sentence is correct.

I know I am missing something here . Pl. advise where I am going wrong.

or should be because the touch rule , which says , the modifier should modify the noun it touches:

here 'in attributing....., the perpetrators ' , so the modifier should automatically refer to the noun it touches and therefore wrong......

pl. respond to my previous first and then this one.....thanks

Hi Stacey ,

I havent been able to understand how B and D mange to refer back the modifer to defense attorneys instead of the prepetrators ! What roles does "but if " play in changing the reference

Cheers

Stacey Koprince wrote:Received a PM asking me to reply. I'm sorry I'm just getting to your message now; I've been on vacation since 23 June.

There's no source cited here, but luckily I recognize this one. It has appeared in both OG and PowerPrep - and, because it appeared in PowerPrep, we're allowed to post and discuss.

varundaga05 asked me to address the misplaced modifier issue here. Generally speaking, there are rules about where to place modifiers in sentences. If the modifier is not placed correctly according to the rules, then the modifier is called a "misplaced modifier."

In this question, we've got a fairly complex sentence, so let's break it down a little bit. Here's the original:

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.

Here's the core: Defense attorneys have argued that misconduct stemmed (from X), but the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible (for Y).

[Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb], but [Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb].

There are several modifiers - the most important one is the long one in the middle - the one that is underlined: "in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy,"

We know that this is a modifier because it cannot stand alone as a sentence. It's modifying, or giving us additional info about, something else in the sentence. What is it modifying? Let's start with: it's modifying something AFTER itself, because this modifier is after the word "but." This modifier is part of the second half of the sentence.

Okay, so what is it modifying? The phrase is describing an action - someone or something is attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to a food allergy. Who or what is doing that? Logically, the defense attorneys are attributing bad behavior to a food allergy - that matches the info in the first half of the sentence. Hmm. But the second half doesn't mention the defense attorneys; it only mentions the perpetrators. Are the perpetrators attributing their own bad behavior to food allergies? I suppose that's possible, but that's not what the first part of the sentence says. The first part says that the defense attornies are doing this. So I've got a "bad" meaning here - a misplaced modifier.

So answer A doesn't work. Ditto C and E.

B and D change the structure of the sentence - what was a modifier is no longer a modifier. Now, it's part of the core. Here's B:

Defense attorneys have argued that misconduct stemmed (from X), but if behavior is attributed to Z, the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible (for Y).

[Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb], but [if Subject Verb, (then) Subject Verb THAT subject verb].

I havent been able to understand how B and D mange to refer back the modifer to defense attorneys instead of the prepetrators ! What roles does "but if " play in changing the reference

Cheers
Aish




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


quote="Stacey Koprince"]Received a PM asking me to reply. I'm sorry I'm just getting to your message now; I've been on vacation since 23 June.

There's no source cited here, but luckily I recognize this one. It has appeared in both OG and PowerPrep - and, because it appeared in PowerPrep, we're allowed to post and discuss.

varundaga05 asked me to address the misplaced modifier issue here. Generally speaking, there are rules about where to place modifiers in sentences. If the modifier is not placed correctly according to the rules, then the modifier is called a "misplaced modifier."

In this question, we've got a fairly complex sentence, so let's break it down a little bit. Here's the original:

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.

Here's the core: Defense attorneys have argued that misconduct stemmed (from X), but the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible (for Y).

[Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb], but [Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb].

There are several modifiers - the most important one is the long one in the middle - the one that is underlined: "in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy,"

We know that this is a modifier because it cannot stand alone as a sentence. It's modifying, or giving us additional info about, something else in the sentence. What is it modifying? Let's start with: it's modifying something AFTER itself, because this modifier is after the word "but." This modifier is part of the second half of the sentence.

Okay, so what is it modifying? The phrase is describing an action - someone or something is attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to a food allergy. Who or what is doing that? Logically, the defense attorneys are attributing bad behavior to a food allergy - that matches the info in the first half of the sentence. Hmm. But the second half doesn't mention the defense attorneys; it only mentions the perpetrators. Are the perpetrators attributing their own bad behavior to food allergies? I suppose that's possible, but that's not what the first part of the sentence says. The first part says that the defense attornies are doing this. So I've got a "bad" meaning here - a misplaced modifier.

So answer A doesn't work. Ditto C and E.

B and D change the structure of the sentence - what was a modifier is no longer a modifier. Now, it's part of the core. Here's B:

Defense attorneys have argued that misconduct stemmed (from X), but if behavior is attributed to Z, the perpetrators are told that they are not responsible (for Y).

[Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb], but [if Subject Verb, (then) Subject Verb THAT subject verb].[/quote]

I havent been able to understand how B and D mange to refer back the modifer to defense attorneys instead of the prepetrators ! What roles does "but if " play in changing the reference

Cheers
Aish




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

simplyjat 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

OA B
What is wrong with the original statement ?

Whenever you see an -ing modifier, ask the following question:

Who or what is performing the action of the -ing word?

A, C and E each say: ...in attributing...., the perpetrators...
The perpetrators are not attributing. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the defense attorneys are attributing the behavior to a food allergy. Eliminate A, C, and E.

In D, attributed as the cause is not idiomatic. The correct idiom is attribute X to Y. Eliminate D.

The correct answer is B.

Don't overthink SCs. Don't look for unusual reasons to eliminate answer choices. Most errors on the GMAT are as clear and straightforward as those cited above.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

simplyjat 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

OA B
What is wrong with the original statement ?

Whenever you see an -ing modifier, ask the following question:

Who or what is performing the action of the -ing word?

A, C and E each say: ...in attributing...., the perpetrators...
The perpetrators are not attributing. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the defense attorneys are attributing the behavior to a food allergy. Eliminate A, C, and E.

In D, attributed as the cause is not idiomatic. The correct idiom is attribute X to Y. Eliminate D.

The correct answer is B.

Don't overthink SCs. Don't look for unusual reasons to eliminate answer choices. Most errors on the GMAT are as clear and straightforward as those cited above.

The problem I had with this question was that instead of the typical Comma + -ing, we had a " But + Preposition + Comma -ING verb"

Are you saying that Prepopsition + Comma + -ing Verb operates the same way? Inaddition, "Subordinate Conjuction + Prepopsition + Comma + -ing Verb operates the same way as the just plain Comma + -ing Verb?

Thank you in advance!!

hilbert wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

simplyjat 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

OA B
What is wrong with the original statement ?

Whenever you see an -ing modifier, ask the following question:

Who or what is performing the action of the -ing word?

A, C and E each say: ...in attributing...., the perpetrators...
The perpetrators are not attributing. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the defense attorneys are attributing the behavior to a food allergy. Eliminate A, C, and E.

In D, attributed as the cause is not idiomatic. The correct idiom is attribute X to Y. Eliminate D.

The correct answer is B.

Don't overthink SCs. Don't look for unusual reasons to eliminate answer choices. Most errors on the GMAT are as clear and straightforward as those cited above.

The problem I had with this question was that instead of the typical Comma + -ing, we had a " But + Preposition + Comma -ING verb"

Are you saying that Prepopsition + Comma + -ing Verb operates the same way? Inaddition, "Subordinate Conjuction + Prepopsition + Comma + -ing Verb operates the same way as the just plain Comma + -ing Verb?

Thank you in advance!!

Both COMMA + VERBing and PREPOSITION + VERBing serve as modifiers. It must be clear what a modifier is modifying.

In the SC above, but implies contrast. Thus, a reader likely will infer that in attributing modifies not the preceding clause but the clause that FOLLOWS. Since this is not the intention of the sentence -- the perpetrators are not attributing -- eliminate A and E.