3） 解答一考友的问题：OG11-SC-67

Defense attorney 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

1) B

2）释意：辩护律师偶尔曾辩说道，他们代理的当事人的不当行为源自他对一种他消化的食物的反应；如果把犯罪或者不当行为归咎为食物过敏的话，那么等效为告知犯罪者他们不应该为他们的行为负责。

3）这个题目关键在于对题目的理解，虽说有时候SC可以不理解句意，但是如果对句子一点头绪都没有很容易不知道如何下手，进而瞎猜。

4）寻异：if xxxxx and in attributing, "in attributing（更恰当的应为attributing）" 对应的主语应该是perpetrators, 这样的话句子无法理解。不合逻辑。只能是引入一个条件从句，和perpertrators尽量断开关系，保持两个分句，所以选“if”。 然后再看attributed 应跟 to， 不能跟 as。固定搭配也是常考点。GMAT很喜欢考固定的介词搭配。

5）这个题目比较难。因为涉及到句子逻辑，GMAT中偶尔会出现类似理解逻辑的题目。