关于heavy commitment by an executive各种解释。此贴为汇总贴，无提问~

lalapiao

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
普遍对于A的提问：* "heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action" is awkward and difficult to read. (you may have to be a native speaker to pick up on this, though)可理解成被动冗杂。
much more importantly:
* makes it likely to miss...
this doesn't work.
technically, this would mean that "it" - an unspecified entity - is likely to miss the signs.
if you use the "it is ADJ..." construction, and the verb has a specific subject, you MUST include that subject in the construction. it is likely that the executive will miss...
makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble 中it不可以作为placeholder吗？
                            解答：To streamline: Commitment makes it likely to miss signs of trouble.
But to miss signs of trouble doesn't make sense as a subject here. You can see this by putting that infinitive in the subject spot:
To miss signs of trouble...what?...is likely? But that's not what the original sentence means.
And to miss signs of trouble doesn't work as an object either. What would you need to make it an object? Well, you would need for someone to be likely to miss signs. The following sentence is awkward, but grammatically defensible:
Commitment makes it likely for an executive to miss signs of trouble.
Much more important, because more accessible by the good test-taker, in the whole sentence C,

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

the second it would be assumed to have the same antecedent as the first it, namely executive.
B中哪里错误？
once that modifier is eliminated, notice that you have a sentence that says that the executive him/herself makes missing the signs likely.
B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action ... makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
"misinterpreting ones" is also wrong. this should be "them", not "ones".
c中it为什么会指代不清？
Everything is fine until we get to "especially if it has worked in the past." The way it is phrases, we can't tell for sure what has worked in the past. Is that referring to a course of action or misintepretation of signs of incipient trouble? If C is to be correct it should say,

"An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked in the past, is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear."也就是it和其指代的名词离太远，或者可以记成it不可以越过谓语指代。
E中being怎么会正确？什么情况下是正确的？
1，you're actually asking the wrong question; the question you should be asking is when you should eliminate "being".
the answer to that question is, ROUGHLY, that you should avoid "being" when expressing the IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTICS of some individual or thing. this is because "being" is usually unnecessary in such cases; there are simpler modifiers (such as appositives) that, while absolutely impossible to use in spoken language, are better in written language.
if "being" expresses IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTICS, then kill it.
otherwise, evaluate it on the same merits as you would any other verb.,
2，in this case, "being" isn't a modifier; it's a gerund (= NOUN type -ing form).
in fact, "being committed" is the subject of this sentence!

i.e., here "being heavily committed"
is like
Swimming is fun.
that's a complete sentence -- "swimming" is a noun (gerund). since it's a noun, it's not modifying anything.

in fact, i don't think you're EVER going to see "being X" as a modifier, because, in any such case, you could simply eliminate "being" to produce a more concise sentence.
i.e.,
Being tired from the party, I fell asleep in less than one minute --> not ok
Tired from the party, I fell asleep in less than one minute --> ok
E中one that不会redundant吗？
you have "a course of action, especially X"
therefore X must be something that's parallel to "a course of action"
i.e., it must be a NOUN/PRONOUN, and it must represent a course of action.

here, "one" stands for "a course of action", so that's good.

if you remove "one", that parallelism is destroyed and you are left with a sentence that doesn't make sense.

octopus66

看了楼主的分析，但是觉得讲的不是很清楚。分享下本人的快速解法。
A) Heavy commitment [ by an executive ] to a course of action,[ especially if it has worked well in the past,] makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. =Heavy commitment to a course of action makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or…..=>what the subject does the second ‘it’ refer to?
B) An executive [who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, ]makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear. =>disrupt the original sentence meaning
C)An executive[ who is heavily committed to a course of action ]is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, [especially if it has worked well in the past.]=>disrupt the original sentence meaning
D)Executives' being heavily committed to a course of action, [especially if it has worked well in the past, ]makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear. =>too many them thereby hard to differentiate
E)Being heavily committed to a course of action, [especially one that has worked well in the past,] is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
这道题目比较难的是快速的分割出主谓宾。所以把原句中的主谓宾分割后，其实语义是很容易理解并且很容易选出正确选项的。

abjure

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
c中it为什么会指代不清？
Everything is fine until we get to "especially if it has worked in the past." The way it is phrases, we can't tell for sure what has worked in the past. Is that referring to a course of action or misintepretation of signs of incipient trouble? If C is to be correct it should say,

"An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked in the past, is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear."也就是it和其指代的名词离太远，或者可以记成it不可以越过谓语指代

这里不同意LZ的中文总结“it不可以越过谓语指代”的这一说。代词指代没有就近指代这一说。尤其在两个句子平行的情况下，clause one AND clause two. 经常可以出现第二个从句主语（代词）指代第一个从句的主语（被指代对象）。C中的IT 关键是前面句子中出现了超过一个可以做为指代对象的NOUN，并且更要命的是这些指代对象和代词不处于平行的对等位置上。 所以OG说它指代模糊。

jeffery2541

顶~

mydokidp

谢谢楼主。

HerringtonD

顶！疑难杂症的解释汇总啊ww

justsmile

GREAT STUFF
THX

leilei908

E中has worked后面为什么能跟in the past

lalapiao

thx，
你说的平行指代我赞同，但是后面的it可指代对象超过一个吗？executive是人很显然不可能被it指代，就只有a course of action可以了。因为平行指代行不通，那就只有一个，怎么会产生模糊呢？
现在想想当时汇总的确实有点胡乱拼凑的意思，都没有搞懂就把各种理论往上套。。

lalapiao

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
c中it为什么会指代不清？
Everything is fine until we get to "especially if it has worked in the past." The way it is phrases, we can't tell for sure what has worked in the past. Is that referring to a course of action or misintepretation of signs of incipient trouble? If C is to be correct it should say,

"An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked in the past, is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear."也就是it和其指代的名词离太远，或者可以记成it不可以越过谓语指代

这里不同意LZ的中文总结“it不可以越过谓语指代”的这一说。代词指代没有就近指代这一说。尤其在两个句子平行的情况下，clause one AND clause two. 经常可以出现第二个从句主语（代词）指代第一个从句的主语（被指代对象）。C中的IT 关键是前面句子中出现了超过一个可以做为指代对象的NOUN，并且更要命的是这些指代对象和代词不处于平行的对等位置上。 所以OG说它指代模糊。

-- by 会员 abjure (2012/8/15 15:05:32)

thx，
你说的平行指代我赞同，但是后面的it可指代对象超过一个吗？executive是人很显然不可能被it指代，就只有a course of action可以了。因为平行指代行不通，那就只有一个，怎么会产生模糊呢？
现在想想当时汇总的确实有点胡乱拼凑的意思，都没有搞懂就把各种理论往上套。。

cuteyaoyao

谢谢楼主 终于看懂了原来是being commited做主语！其实one可以理解成同位语 对吧?