OG13th 82题求助，关于misplaced modifier

冷月无声5555

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested,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.
这是正确的部分,if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food,
错误选项：in attributing criminal criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy，这句话读起来确实感觉不对，不过答案我不理解“The modifying phrase(in atttributing....)”incorrectly describes perpetrators when it should discribe attorneys，不知道这里是怎么看哪个修饰哪个的。。求讲解，非常感谢！

flyfish0108

但是即使使用if 。。。。，这个句子依然不正确啊，后面那个句子缺少连接词。

冷月无声5555

rylstar01

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested,in attributing criminal criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.
看到这个的时候，个人觉得第一反应是夹心修饰。
也就是说，既可以对前面句子的修饰，也可以是对后面句子的修饰。
关于OG的解释，我个人是这么理解的，由于存在歧义，题中的attributing从逻辑上想修饰的是attorney发出的动作，但是语法上，既可以修饰attorney也可以被误认为是perpetrators发出的动作。从这个角度看的话，不是一个很好的选项；同时这个选项还有一个硬伤就是，两个句子中没有连接词。也就是说，即使这个夹心修饰不存在歧义，由于存在硬伤，也是错误的。
类似的题目，个人推荐的是OG12中的第3题，Although various eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
OG13的话，我就不知道题号了。：）你找一下哈。

kiwifoodtown

in attributing，在这个位置的确是可以看作状语来修饰前一句，这样，attributing 的逻辑主语就变成了Defense attorneys ，这样就造成了错误。