OG13 sc 9 请教NN们~~~

yiqing2012

9. In 1979 lack of rain reduced India’s rice productionto about 41 million tons, nearly 25 percentless than those of the 1978 harvest.

(A) less than those of the 1978 harvest

(B) less than the 1978 harvest

(C) less than 1978

(D) fewer than 1978

(E) fewer than that of India’s 1978 harvest

看过了其它的帖子，又看了几遍OG的解释还是不理解：1）为什么不能比较tons,而一定要比较rice production呢？
2）在nearly 25 percent less than those of the 1978harvest 前面到底省略了什么？是which is 还是which are还是。。。?
3）A中解释说those 应该指代tons,如果those指代tons，OG上为什么没有提less应该改成fewer的错误，而仅仅只说有语义重复的问题呢？
4）解释上说的think of 41 million tons of rice as the collective equivalent of the 1979 harvest 到底包含了什么含义？
求NN们指导~~

yiqing2012

dddddd

yiqing2012

up~~

yiqing2012

up~~~

DUKB24

9. In 1979 lack of rain reduced India’s rice production to about 41 million tons, nearly 25 percent less than those of the 1978 harvest.

(A) less than those of the 1978 harvest

(B) less than the 1978 harvest

(C) less than 1978

(D) fewer than 1978

(E) fewer than that of India’s 1978 harvest

看过了其它的帖子，又看了几遍OG的解释还是不理解：1）为什么不能比较tons,而一定要比较rice production呢？
2）在nearly 25 percent less than those of the 1978harvest 前面到底省略了什么？是which is 还是which are还是。。。?
3）A中解释说those 应该指代tons,如果those指代tons，OG上为什么没有提less应该改成fewer的错误，而仅仅只说有语义重复的问题呢？
4）解释上说的think of 41 million tons of rice as the collective equivalent of the 1979 harvest 到底包含了什么含义？
求NN们指导~~

-- by 会员 yiqing2012 (2012/10/21 21:47:01)

tricky question


So,here u get the split between fewer and less


countable nouns vs. uncountable nouns.


also that vs those


that of /those of


you should understand that if you use structure such as that of/ those of . you should have a similar structure in the former part to let the sentence parallel and also to let us understand what that or those refers to


since there is no" noun of ..... structure" present in the former part, such structure should be out


also, if you don't understand this technique, even that those can be point to tons


how can u use less for comparison between countable nouns


the same applies to that (production )    fewer cannot introduce comparison between uncountable nouns








"nearly 25 percent less than those of the 1978harvest " is a adverbial modifier , modifies the preceding clause




you can further post your questions if I omit some points you ask here

yiqing2012

OG上的解释感觉并没有否定that/those of 因为前面没有类似的结构所以不对，而是因为that/those的指代会和harvest引发语义重复。
以A选项为例，OG的解释是：This version exhibits redundant word choice. The pronoun those refers to the tons of the 1978 harvest. Both harvests are measured in tons, and it is clearer and simpler to compare with the harvest itself, not with the tons of the harvest.

所以我才会问，如果those指代了tons，为什么不提less的错误呢？是不是会和：“think of 41 million tons of rice as the collective equivalent of the 1979 harvest ”的解释有关系？

而E选项中，OG的解释是：Since the comparative adjective should refer to rice production, fewer is not appropriate. Furthermore, the pronounthat refers back to India’s rice production [fewer than the rice production of India’s 1978 harvest] and is redundant. The word harvest is sufficient here to express the comparison.  
是不是由于语义上和年份更相关的应该是该年份的产量，而不是该年份的吨数，所以推出比较的对象是production而不是tons?

DUKB24

OG上的解释感觉并没有否定that/those of 因为前面没有类似的结构所以不对，而是因为that/those的指代会和harvest引发语义重复。
以A选项为例，OG的解释是：This version exhibits redundant word choice. The pronoun those refers to the tons of the 1978 harvest. Both harvests are measured in tons, and it is clearer and simpler to compare with the harvest itself, not with the tons of the harvest.

所以我才会问，如果those指代了tons，为什么不提less的错误呢？是不是会和：“think of 41 million tons of rice as the collective equivalent of the 1979 harvest ”的解释有关系？

而E选项中，OG的解释是：Since the comparative adjective should refer to rice production, fewer is not appropriate. Furthermore, the pronounthat refers back to India’s rice production [fewer than the rice production of India’s 1978 harvest] and is redundant. The word harvest is sufficient here to express the comparison.  
是不是由于语义上和年份更相关的应该是该年份的产量，而不是该年份的吨数，所以推出比较的对象是production而不是tons?

-- by 会员 yiqing2012 (2012/10/21 23:10:38)

OG解释的人也不是神


他们也是人


他们分析错误不见得会全部分析出来，就像OG12的解释他们也漏掉很多东西


1+1=3， OG的解释是说1+1=2所以之前的等式是错的


1+2=3，这个也可能证明之前的等式是错的


殊途同归


我可以很确定的告诉你这里的those不能指代到之前的tons，理由就是我之前说的


在几乎所有的those/that of引导的比较问题，OG的选项前面都会有个与that/those of对称的结构来认为that/those是指代 noun/nouns of中的noun/nouns

sisichen666

额。。。。LZ见过哪道题有比较吨和kg，厘米和米的吗？？？这种计量单位有比较的意义吗？？？？只有实词有意义的词汇才有比较的可能。。。。

对于A选项，og的解释实际上是说，原句主要想表达1979年的production和1978年的harvest相比减少了25%，但是这里those指代41 million tons，那么就变成了产量和41 million tons比，不合理——那还有必要再说fewer的问题吗？？源头都错误了，修饰成分还用再纠结吗？

对于E选项，形容词使用错误，fewer指代可数名词，而production是不可数名词；that of是冗余的，意思为india‘s 1978年产量的产量

sisichen666

LZ还是从语义来看，如果能想通是比较production和harvest，其他估计问题就不大了。。。。

yiqing2012

OG上的解释感觉并没有否定that/those of 因为前面没有类似的结构所以不对，而是因为that/those的指代会和harvest引发语义重复。
以A选项为例，OG的解释是：This version exhibits redundant word choice. The pronoun those refers to the tons of the 1978 harvest. Both harvests are measured in tons, and it is clearer and simpler to compare with the harvest itself, not with the tons of the harvest.

所以我才会问，如果those指代了tons，为什么不提less的错误呢？是不是会和：“think of 41 million tons of rice as the collective equivalent of the 1979 harvest ”的解释有关系？

而E选项中，OG的解释是：Since the comparative adjective should refer to rice production, fewer is not appropriate. Furthermore, the pronounthat refers back to India’s rice production [fewer than the rice production of India’s 1978 harvest] and is redundant. The word harvest is sufficient here to express the comparison.  
是不是由于语义上和年份更相关的应该是该年份的产量，而不是该年份的吨数，所以推出比较的对象是production而不是tons?

-- by 会员 yiqing2012 (2012/10/21 23:10:38)

OG解释的人也不是神


他们也是人


他们分析错误不见得会全部分析出来，就像OG12的解释他们也漏掉很多东西


1+1=3， OG的解释是说1+1=2所以之前的等式是错的


1+2=3，这个也可能证明之前的等式是错的


殊途同归


我可以很确定的告诉你这里的those不能指代到之前的tons，理由就是我之前说的


在几乎所有的those/that of引导的比较问题，OG的选项前面都会有个与that/those of对称的结构来认为that/those是指代 noun/nouns of中的noun/nouns

-- by 会员 DUKB24 (2012/10/21 23:16:50)

thks a lot~~  我最近刷第三遍OG的时候非常苦恼，因为发现了很多OG解释里没有提到的问题，而且很多问题论坛上也木有人讨论过，所以不知道对错。。。
可不可以再问一个问题啊~因为每次你回答的都比较清楚而且有说服力~：

4. At the end of the 1930s, Duke Ellington was looking for a composer to assist him—someone not only who could arrange music for his successful big band, but mirroring his eccentric writing style as well in order to finishthe many pieces he had started but never completed.

(A) someone not only who could arrange music for his successful big band, but mirroring his eccentric writing style as well in order to finish

(B) someone who could not only arrange music for his successful big band, but also mirror his eccentric writing style in order to finish

(C) someone who not only could arrange music for his successful big band, but also to mirror his eccentric writing style in finishing

(D) that being someone who could not only arrange music for his successful big band, but mirroring his eccentric writing style for finishing

(E) being someone not only who could arrange music for his successful big band, but mirror his eccentric writing style as well, finishing


答案很清楚，但是对于D的解释：

Instead of the shorter and clearersomeone who, this version uses the longer phrasethat being someone who, which is overly wordy. Furthermore, the verbs are not in the same form and so the construction is unparallel. Finally, the best way to express the causal relationship between the composer’s qualities and finishing Ellington’s pieces is to use the conjunctionin order to.
that being 结构肯定不对，但解释没有说that的指代问题，好像默认指代了composer,而不是him,这里的that可以跳跃to assist him 来修饰composer吗(因为我只知道that的跳跃修饰最大只能跳跃介词短语)？同理，同位语跳跃的修饰中也可以跳跃to do？

Instead of the shorter and clearersomeone who, this version uses the longer phrasethat being someone who, which is overly wordy. Furthermore, the verbs are not in the same form and so the construction is unparallel. Finally, the best way to express the causal relationship between the composer’s qualities and finishing Ellington’s pieces is to use the conjunctionin order to.
that being 结构肯定不对，但解释没有说that的指代问题，好像默认指代了composer,而不是him,这里的that可以跳跃to assist him 来修饰composer吗(因为我只知道that的跳跃修饰最大只能跳跃介词短语)？同理，同位语跳跃的修饰中也可以跳跃to do？