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
Dont know how to attack this question.
Question 2
This topic has expert replies
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:58 am
- Birottam Dutta
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:50 am
- Thanked: 214 times
- Followed by:19 members
- GMAT Score:740
Real tough one, this!!!
Two things here.
First of all the modifier "in attributing" is misplaced because it seems to be modifying the perpetrators but actually it is the defense lawyers who are attributing and not the perpetrators. So, A is incorrect.
Ditto with C and E as well.
Here's the second thing:
attributing is used as follows: (effect) is attributed to (cause).
D does not follow the above structure but B does.
B is the correct answer.
Two things here.
First of all the modifier "in attributing" is misplaced because it seems to be modifying the perpetrators but actually it is the defense lawyers who are attributing and not the perpetrators. So, A is incorrect.
Ditto with C and E as well.
Here's the second thing:
attributing is used as follows: (effect) is attributed to (cause).
D does not follow the above structure but B does.
B is the correct answer.
Folks please check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7p56NzAVKc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7p56NzAVKc
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
Birottam Dutta's explanation is great. I just want to add one more thing:
When a sentence has a modifying phrase ("in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior") that appears before the noun it modifies, you should stop at the comma and ask the question that the modifier raises.
So, once we read, "in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy," we'll stop and ask, "Who/what is attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy?"
The part that follows the comma should answer that question in a logical way.
Reading on we get..."the perpetrators."
Hmm, the perpetrators are attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy? No, the attorneys are attributing the behaviour. Since this changes the intended meaning of the sentence, answer choice A is incorrect.
The same principle can be applied to eliminate C and E.
Cheers,
Brent
When a sentence has a modifying phrase ("in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior") that appears before the noun it modifies, you should stop at the comma and ask the question that the modifier raises.
So, once we read, "in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy," we'll stop and ask, "Who/what is attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy?"
The part that follows the comma should answer that question in a logical way.
Reading on we get..."the perpetrators."
Hmm, the perpetrators are attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy? No, the attorneys are attributing the behaviour. Since this changes the intended meaning of the sentence, answer choice A is incorrect.
The same principle can be applied to eliminate C and E.
Cheers,
Brent