【已解决】OG12 SC 79 小疑惑

jay871750293

79. Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminalor 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

答案对A的解释说，in attributing错误地修饰perpetrator，但是为什么呢？
分词在句首修饰句子主语是常见的用法，但是这里分词前面有一个介词in呀？
意思是说分词前面加一个介词也同样是修饰主语的咯？？

谢谢各位了~~~

jay871750293

自己顶一下！！！

jay871750293

再顶一下...

jay871750293

继续顶...

jay871750293

自己默默再顶...

zhongshanlh

其实我对于这个in doing表达的逻辑含义层面上的认知也有一点点模糊，记得OG12还有一道题目中有关in doing也是在错误选项中，帮顶此题吧

teddybearj4

刚在自修室里，无线断了一下，打了一堆都没了，怒死……

这题一定要用语意解题，首先句意是：辩护律师跟他们的委托人说如果后果是因为A，不是因为B，那么被告有权说他们不负责任。
这题还有个要注意的地方是attribute的用法：
主动：sb. attributes X (an effect) to y (a cause)
被动：X (an effect) is attribute to y (a cause)

接下来就可以看A啦，in doing sth.中attribute的用法是主动的，逻辑意义上动作的发出者是attorneys，所以应该把“in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy” 这个verb modifier放在句子的最前面。若放在but之后，“in attributing”只能修饰perpetrators，与句子逻辑不符。

再看B，“attribute”此时的用法是被动，已不再是attorneys的modifier了，而是后面“the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions”的条件状语从句，句子逻辑意思无误。

jay871750293

刚在自修室里，无线断了一下，打了一堆都没了，怒死……

这题一定要用语意解题，首先句意是：辩护律师跟他们的委托人说如果后果是因为A，不是因为B，那么被告有权说他们不负责任。
这题还有个要注意的地方是attribute的用法：
主动：sb. attributes X (an effect) to y (a cause)
被动：X (an effect) is attribute to y (a cause)

接下来就可以看A啦，in doing sth.中attribute的用法是主动的，逻辑意义上动作的发出者是attorneys，所以应该把“in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy” 这个verb modifier放在句子的最前面。若放在but之后，“in attributing”只能修饰perpetrators，与句子逻辑不符。

再看B，“attribute”此时的用法是被动，已不再是attorneys的modifier了，而是后面“the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions”的条件状语从句，句子逻辑意思无误。

-- by 会员 teddybearj4 (2012/4/19 23:24:00)

谢谢咯，亲~

我还是有一个小疑惑，你有说“放but之后，“in attributing”只能修饰perpetrators”，我想问一下是不是perp+doing的结构在句首也是需要逻辑主语的？就像doing在句首一样？

非常感谢~~

teddybearj4

摁摁，是的。
关于这种prep.+simple gerund的用法在manhattan的P90页有详细讲，有错误用法和正确用法的例子，LZ可以去读读体会一下。

泠泠曲罢

OG 的原话是 The modifying phrase (in attributing...) incorrectly describes perpetrators when it should
describe defense attorneys.

As long as the subject is still the perpetrators (which is not underlined), we cannot use "in attributing"