BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Defense attorneys

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:24 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:5 members

Defense attorneys

by j_shreyans » Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:51 am
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

Please explain.
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Legendary Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:24 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:5 members

by j_shreyans » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:54 am
Hi Experts ,

Your explanation will be highly appreciated .

Please explain.

Thanks
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:39 am
j_shreyans 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
A, C and E: in attributing...the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions .
Here, attributing seems to refer to the perpetrators, implying that the PERPETRATORS are ATTRIBUTING their behavior to a food allergy.
Not the intended meaning.
According to the non-underlined portion, the perpetrators ARE IN EFFECT TOLD that they are not responsible for their actions.
The intended meaning is that DEFENSE ATTORNEYS are attributing criminal behavior to a food allergy.
Eliminate A, C and E.

To attribute means TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE.
D: if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal behavior
Here, attributed as the cause is redundant.
The correct idiom is TO ATTRIBUTE X TO Y, as in the OA:
if criminal behavior is ATTRIBUTED TO some food allergy.
Eliminate D.

The correct answer is B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:14 am
Hi GMATGuruNY - a clarification requied on the use of BUT in this SC.

I think, the conjunction BUT is used to express CONTRAST. But not able to get it clear that how CONTRAST is expressed or conveyed here in this SC ?
Because BOTH the CLAUSES "Defense attorneys have occasionally.... reaction to something ingested" and "if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed....not responsible for their actions" seem to convey that attorneys try to establish that perpetrators(re their clients) are NOT responsible for their wrong doings or so... Isn't it ?

Could you please help ? (Just trying to understand the overall meaning of this SC)

Also, in the phrase perpetrators are in effect told , does in effect means AT HAND or UNDER CONSIDERATION ?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:57 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY - a clarification requied on the use of BUT in this SC.

I think, the conjunction BUT is used to express CONTRAST. But not able to get it clear that how CONTRAST is expressed or conveyed here in this SC ?
Because BOTH the CLAUSES "Defense attorneys have occasionally.... reaction to something ingested" and "if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed....not responsible for their actions" seem to convey that attorneys try to establish that perpetrators(re their clients) are NOT responsible for their wrong doings or so... Isn't it ?

Could you please help ? (Just trying to understand the overall meaning of this SC)

Also, in the phrase perpetrators are in effect told , does in effect means AT HAND or UNDER CONSIDERATION ?
OA: 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.

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested.
Implication:
The perpetrators are not responsible for their actions.
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.
Implication:
It is WRONG to tell the perpetrators that they are not responsible for their actions.
Both but and in effect serve to convey how the author of the SC disagrees with the attorneys.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:29 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote: 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.
Implication:
It is WRONG to tell the perpetrators that they are not responsible for their actions.
Hi GMATGuruNY - NOT able to understand how the above sentence/clause(in Italics) conveys the RED part ?

How DOES the above clause (re But if criminal or delinquent behavior is...they are not responsible for their actions ) serve to convey that the perpetrators ARE responsible for their actions ? Because it appears to me that this clause AS WELL says that the criminal behavior or misconduct of the perpetrators(re the clients of the Defense Attorneys) are because of the food allergy, a similar type of reason cited by the Defense Attorneys -- a reaction to something ingested.

So, don't get it that how this clause beginning with BUT is actually a contrast emphasizing that Defense Attorneys' argument doesn't hold good and perpetrators are IN FACT not responsible for their actions ?
GMATGuruNY wrote:Both but and in effect serve to convey how the author of the SC disagrees with the attorneys.
What EXACTLY in effect means here ?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:37 am
What EXACTLY in effect means here ?
in effect serves to express an UNINTENDED -- and probably NEGATIVE -- effect of a preceding action.
Here, the usage of in effect serves to express an unintended, negative effect of what defense attorneys have occasionally argued:
The perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: 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.
Implication:
It is WRONG to tell the perpetrators that they are not responsible for their actions.
Hi GMATGuruNY - NOT able to understand how the above sentence/clause(in Italics) conveys the RED part ?

How DOES the above clause (re But if criminal or delinquent behavior is...they are not responsible for their actions ) serve to convey that the perpetrators ARE responsible for their actions ?
but implies CONTRAST.
OA: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, BUT...
Here, the usage of but implies that there is a PROBLEM with what attorneys HAVE OCCASIONALLY ARGUED.
The problem is the unintended, negative effect discussed above:
The perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.
Since this effect is deemed a problem, the implication is that the perpetrators SHOULD be held responsible for their actions.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:17 am
Hi Mitch -
(1) If in effect means UNINTENDED -- and probably NEGATIVE -- effect of a preceding action then ONLY I think, the above reasoning seems to be true. (However, as I google in effect, I couldn't find its meaning as described above...! )

(2) Another doubt I still have is that it appears to me that BOTH the Defense attorneys and AUTHOR of this SC try to indicate that SOME sort of EXTERNAL FACTOR is ACTUALLY the SOURCE/REASON (a reaction to something ingested -- Defense attorneys and an allergy to some food -- AUTHOR ) of the criminal or delinquent behavior of the perpetrators. Correct me please if wrong!
Now, if the above statement is correct then how actually the AUTHOR contradicts Defense attorneys LOGICALLY (though BUT expresses CONTRADICTION) ? Could you please shed any light where EXACTLY I'm getting it wrong ?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:34 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Mitch -
(1) If in effect means UNINTENDED -- and probably NEGATIVE -- effect of a preceding action then ONLY I think, the above reasoning seems to be true. (However, as I google in effect, I couldn't find its meaning as described above...! )
Analogous sentences in the NY Times:
If the right gets its way, it will in effect bring the policies behind the Greek disaster to America.
If Mr. Tsipras stays in office, he will in effect have been forced to move toward the political center.
In each case, the usage of in effect serves to express an unintended effect of the preceding action.
(2) Another doubt I still have is that it appears to me that BOTH the Defense attorneys and AUTHOR of this SC try to indicate that SOME sort of EXTERNAL FACTOR is ACTUALLY the SOURCE/REASON (a reaction to something ingested -- Defense attorneys and an allergy to some food -- AUTHOR ) of the criminal or delinquent behavior of the perpetrators. Correct me please if wrong!
Now, if the above statement is correct then how actually the AUTHOR contradicts Defense attorneys LOGICALLY (though BUT expresses CONTRADICTION) ? Could you please shed any light where EXACTLY I'm getting it wrong ?
As I mentioned in my post above, the usage of but serves to express that the author DISAGREES with the defense attorneys.
Every word after but must be interpreted THROUGH THIS LENS.
Conveyed meaning:
If criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food -- in other words, if someone (such as a defense attorney) WRONGLY attributes bad behavior to a food allergy -- then the perpetrators are in effect WRONGLY told that they are not responsible for their actions.
According to the author, every action discussed after but is WRONG.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1