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 ?
Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their client
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:13 pm
Can somebody pls enlighten as to why A is worng choice...
(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
Allergry to some food as in B is too wordy
Pls do help
(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
Allergry to some food as in B is too wordy
Pls do help
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:13 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
A,C,E - Modification error: the phrase In attributing X to Y is modifying perpetrators whereas it should modify attroneys because they are the ones who are attributing deliquint behaviour to food allergy.
B - wordy becasue instead of saying 'an allergy to some food', we can simply say 'food allergy'
D - is correct
B - wordy becasue instead of saying 'an allergy to some food', we can simply say 'food allergy'
D - is correct
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:06 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
This is an idiom question . Attribute X(an effect ) to Y(a cause). Which lead to what? Criminal or delinquent behaviour lead to an allergy. Eliminate C,D,E . We left with A and B. I choosed A but when I read again I noticed ......in attributing criminal or delinquent behaviour to some food energy, the perpetrators. It clearly modifies perpetrators. But I admit that I did not understand to whole sentence. Tough one.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 ?
Please do not post answers visibly . Please hide them or post them later after the discussion.
- vineetbatra
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
I still do not understand
1. Why in attributing is modifying the preptrators(which I think are the clients')
2. even if it is modifying clients' why is it incorrect.
Can someone please explain.
1. Why in attributing is modifying the preptrators(which I think are the clients')
2. even if it is modifying clients' why is it incorrect.
Can someone please explain.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:22 am
- Thanked: 19 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:700
In doing X, someone/something... <-- when the prep phrase comes before the main clause, it always modifies the subject of the main clause, and the logical relationship between the phrase and the actor (subject) has to make sense.
ie: By crashing the car into the house, the dog was killed by him. Here, it's not the dog that crashed the car, so the logical relationshp doesn't make sense. It has to be corrected to: By crashing the car into the house, he killed the dog. The same principle can be applied to the question.
"in attributing..." is an action done by the lawyer. it is "the laywers" who attribute whatever, so logically the prep phrase is misplaced. either change the prep phrase, or rearrange the main clause.
ie: By crashing the car into the house, the dog was killed by him. Here, it's not the dog that crashed the car, so the logical relationshp doesn't make sense. It has to be corrected to: By crashing the car into the house, he killed the dog. The same principle can be applied to the question.
"in attributing..." is an action done by the lawyer. it is "the laywers" who attribute whatever, so logically the prep phrase is misplaced. either change the prep phrase, or rearrange the main clause.
Brilliant explanationcapnx wrote:In doing X, someone/something... <-- when the prep phrase comes before the main clause, it always modifies the subject of the main clause, and the logical relationship between the phrase and the actor (subject) has to make sense.
ie: By crashing the car into the house, the dog was killed by him. Here, it's not the dog that crashed the car, so the logical relationshp doesn't make sense. It has to be corrected to: By crashing the car into the house, he killed the dog. The same principle can be applied to the question.
"in attributing..." is an action done by the lawyer. it is "the laywers" who attribute whatever, so logically the prep phrase is misplaced. either change the prep phrase, or rearrange the main clause.
Thanks a lot for your wonderful explanation.It clarified some important concepts that I have a doubt in....capnx wrote:In doing X, someone/something... <-- when the prep phrase comes before the main clause, it always modifies the subject of the main clause, and the logical relationship between the phrase and the actor (subject) has to make sense.
ie: By crashing the car into the house, the dog was killed by him. Here, it's not the dog that crashed the car, so the logical relationshp doesn't make sense. It has to be corrected to: By crashing the car into the house, he killed the dog. The same principle can be applied to the question.
"in attributing..." is an action done by the lawyer. it is "the laywers" who attribute whatever, so logically the prep phrase is misplaced. either change the prep phrase, or rearrange the main clause.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:48 am
- Thanked: 1 times
Can someone explain this with each options
Misplaced Modifier specially..
Not clear and how to detect the same
Misplaced Modifier specially..
Not clear and how to detect the same
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
- Thanked: 2 times
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Stacey Koprince
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2228
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
- Thanked: 639 times
- Followed by:694 members
- GMAT Score:780
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].
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].
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!
Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT
Contributor to Beat The GMAT!
Learn more about me
Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT
Contributor to Beat The GMAT!
Learn more about me