关于Ving用法—og12 sc 中21和og25比较，有点迷惑了

abjure · 发表于 2012-8-26 15:25:34

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">
做题时候的又一个小小的收获吧，主要是也想得到大家的看法和意见： 55. Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later. (A) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply (B) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply (C) programs; that enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, to apply (D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying (E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying 答案D中，OG的解释是applying following a nonrestrictive clause suggests incorrectly that the builders, not the family, are applying the rent. 这里对于【，v-ing】结构的使用又出现了一个小小的注意——就是虽然我们说【，v-ing】描述的preceding clause，但是通过这个题目我们发现，v-ing也是可以发生跳跃的（并且是可以跳从句的），这里就跳跃了前面的非限定性定从。。。。 不知道这个是个特例还是说非限定性定从都要跳过去的？ 如果是一个限定性定从呢？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/5/4 19:34:24)</div> 
</div>
 以下是Ron关于DE项的解释： in the two choices (d) and (e), "applying..." shouldn't be a modifier at all, because it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. (number one, the families can move into new housing; number two, the families can apply part of the rent to a later purchase. these are different things.) so there's really no sense in nitpicking over what it can or can't modify, because it shouldn't be a modifier at all. 至于关于comma+v-ing是否可以跳跃的问题，我个人认为如果是非限制性定语从句，由于其去掉对句子基本无影响，那么comma+v-ing从理论上来讲不就不应该修饰其中的内容么? 但如果是限制性定语从句，那么要看具体的情况根据语境分析理解了。 一家之言，求证实，求指教。<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 ainiAnnie (2012/8/1 3:53:36)</div> 
</div>
 1. Ron解释得很赞. 重点：it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. 类似错误：Dickson's letter那道OG题目，用", outnumbering ..."之所以错，就是it gives another, separate aspect of the letter. 2. adverbial modifier哪有“跳跃修饰”的说法？本来adverbial modifier位置就相对灵活，不像noun modifier是就近修饰的。 3. 同样还是这个贴子之前Ron那几句总结："comma + v-ing"修饰的是preceding clause.<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/8/1 12:54:48)</div> 
</div>
 to babybearmm： 这里刚刚看到OG 12-55  RON 得帖子，他讲到：当 “comma+ V-ing”有多个潜在的修饰对象（即多对 S-V pair）根据Comman sense 来确定修饰对象。 这点和babybearmm上面说的第三点""comma + v-ing"修饰的是preceding clause."不太一样，求解。 http://www.beatthegmat.com/modifier-issue-expert-t87486.html 原话如下。 also, bear in mind that there is some flexibility here -- if a comma + -ING modifier follows a complex expression that has more than one subject+verb pair, then you may have to use a certain amount of common sense to distinguish what is modified. the modifier still must modify the same rules, but could refer to either of the subject/verb combinations. e.g1. i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat. here, the comma -ing modifier modifies only the second subject+verb pair.  shown in color: i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat. VS. e.g2 i dropped a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives. here, the comma -ing modifier modifies the entire preceding clause.  shown in color: <span style="color

range;">i dropped a bag (containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks), <span style="color

range;">breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.

abjure · 发表于 2012-8-27 17:10:54

up ，求解答

babybearmm · 发表于 2013-3-23 04:07:53

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">
做题时候的又一个小小的收获吧，主要是也想得到大家的看法和意见： 55. Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later. (A) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply (B) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply (C) programs; that enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, to apply (D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying (E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying 答案D中，OG的解释是applying following a nonrestrictive clause suggests incorrectly that the builders, not the family, are applying the rent. 这里对于【，v-ing】结构的使用又出现了一个小小的注意——就是虽然我们说【，v-ing】描述的preceding clause，但是通过这个题目我们发现，v-ing也是可以发生跳跃的（并且是可以跳从句的），这里就跳跃了前面的非限定性定从。。。。 不知道这个是个特例还是说非限定性定从都要跳过去的？ 如果是一个限定性定从呢？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/5/4 19:34:24)</div> 
</div>
 以下是Ron关于DE项的解释： in the two choices (d) and (e), "applying..." shouldn't be a modifier at all, because it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. (number one, the families can move into new housing; number two, the families can apply part of the rent to a later purchase. these are different things.) so there's really no sense in nitpicking over what it can or can't modify, because it shouldn't be a modifier at all. 至于关于comma+v-ing是否可以跳跃的问题，我个人认为如果是非限制性定语从句，由于其去掉对句子基本无影响，那么comma+v-ing从理论上来讲不就不应该修饰其中的内容么? 但如果是限制性定语从句，那么要看具体的情况根据语境分析理解了。 一家之言，求证实，求指教。<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 ainiAnnie (2012/8/1 3:53:36)</div> 
</div>
 1. Ron解释得很赞. 重点：it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. 类似错误：Dickson's letter那道OG题目，用", outnumbering ..."之所以错，就是it gives another, separate aspect of the letter. 2. adverbial modifier哪有“跳跃修饰”的说法？本来adverbial modifier位置就相对灵活，不像noun modifier是就近修饰的。 3. 同样还是这个贴子之前Ron那几句总结："comma + v-ing"修饰的是preceding clause.<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/8/1 12:54:48)</div> 
</div>
 to babybearmm： 这里刚刚看到OG 12-55  RON 得帖子，他讲到：当 “comma+ V-ing”有多个潜在的修饰对象（即多对 S-V pair）根据Comman sense 来确定修饰对象。 这点和babybearmm上面说的第三点""comma + v-ing"修饰的是preceding clause."不太一样，求解。 http://www.beatthegmat.com/modifier-issue-expert-t87486.html 原话如下。 also, bear in mind that there is some flexibility here -- if a comma + -ING modifier follows a complex expression that has more than one subject+verb pair, then you may have to use a certain amount of common sense to distinguish what is modified. the modifier still must modify the same rules, but could refer to either of the subject/verb combinations. e.g1. i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat. here, the comma -ing modifier modifies only the second subject+verb pair.  shown in color: i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat. VS. e.g2 i dropped a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives. here, the comma -ing modifier modifies the entire preceding clause.  shown in color: <span style="color

range;">i dropped a bag (containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks), <span style="color

range;">breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 abjure (2012/8/26 15:25:34)</div> 
</div>
 啊abjure我居然刚注意到你这个贴子，我觉得你是对的，根据common sense来推测句意的。 <a href="http://forum.chasedream.com/archiver/GMAT_SC/thread-822858-1.html" target="_blank">http://forum.chasedream.com/archiver/GMAT_SC/thread-822858-1.html</a> 这里的例句跟你给的那个"i dropped a bag"很像。 You're right!

catherinezm · 发表于 2013-6-13 04:57:28

太经典了，但是太多了看到第8页后面看不下去了

zhuangzhilingy · 发表于 2013-6-20 20:47:46

babybearmm 发表于 2012-3-12 15:32
那请他来回答吧...反正那道neuroscientists的题目，肯定是作为noun modifier修饰neuroscientists ...

关于Baby姐和54楼同学的“冲突”我来说一下我的看法，我当时也注意到第25题和Prep08笔记中的夹心修饰的提法有冲突，但仔细看完OG13，前后总结了一下，如下：
首先，我们要明白我们现在考的是GMAT，经过一段时间的学习大家都知道GMAT的语法和通常的语法有些不一样，它似乎更严格，有些词平时有多种意思可在某些场景下使用，但确在GMAT中不被允许使用。比如按照大家以前的语法习惯，whether和if都可以引导宾语从句，但是在GMAT里，它规定只能用whether引导。可能是if后面跟句子的时候时还可以表示是条件，意思是如果，这是我个人的理解。而且在读Manhattan的那本语法书时，它也多次提到GMAT的语法里边跟平时我们用的有点不一样。所以，结论，我们既然是在考G
，那么就一定要按照GMAT的游戏规则来出牌。那么GMAT的规则在哪里体现呢，那么最权威的莫过于OG了，而且是最新版的OG13。所以我们一切都要以OG上面的规则为准，哪怕你是这个权威，那个大牛呢，在和OG给出的规则有冲突时，一切以OG为准。

在明白上面个前提的情况下，我来说一下我对逗号+VING在它前面没有句子时的用法的看法。OG13第25题，Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.
(A) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are
(B) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are
(C) Neuroscientists amassing a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are
(D) Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,
(E) Neuroscientists have amassed, over the past twenty years, a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,

答案是A。
我当时也是不明白A中的having amassed部分到底是做定语还是状语。找来找去，最后在C选项的解释里找到了答案。
C Amassing, like having amassed, functions as an adjective, not a verb; the sentence therefore lacks the first main verb implied by the compound verb construction and are now drawing....
我想这是OG自己说的，amassing和having amassed功能上是形容词，所以having amassed是做定语。

OG13-104 Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinating them with her narratives, capitalized on her keen observation and love of the natural world.

(A) Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinating them with her narratives,
(B) In her book illustrations, carefully coordinating them with her narratives, Beatrix Potter
(C) In her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter
(D) Carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations
(E) Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinated them with her narratives and
答案是C。
B选项的解释是B    Phrase carefully coordinating... illogically modifies the noun that immediately precedes it: book illustrations; Potter, not the illustrations, did the coordinating.
翻译过来是carefully coordinating 不和逻辑的修饰了它前面的名词book illustration。OG在这里也没说carefully coordinating既可以同时向前修饰同时也可以向后修饰，因为这个产生歧义所以才错。它就只说了是向前修饰。所以，这里又是一个逗号+Ving做定语修饰紧挨着它前面的名词的例子。

OG13-106  Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology.

(A) Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it,
(B) Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, having the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission
(C) A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it,
(D) A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced X-ray emission, which has the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance quickly and without destroying it,
(E) A technique that was originally developed for detecting air pollutants and has the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance quickly and without destroying the substance, called proton-induced X-ray emission,
答案是A。
B 选项的解释是B    Placement of two long modifiers at the beginning of the sentence is awkward and makes it difficult to locate the subject; second modifier (having...) actually modifies the first modifier.
大家看分号后的解释，说是第二个修饰成分having实际上修饰了第一个修饰成分。这里它说的不是很清楚，到底是修饰前面整个短语呢还是修饰前面紧挨着它的名词。但是这里我认为还是修饰它前面的名词。有一点可以确认的是OG在这里还是只说到having部分还是往前面修饰，并没有说也同时可以向后修饰。
  关于逗号+VING在前面没有句子时的例子我只在OG13中找到这3个。OG的解释都是只向前修饰，所以经过上面的分析和总结，我认为逗号+VING如果不是在句末或者前面没有句子的情况下就是做定语修饰前面的名词。

关于Prep08笔记中的夹心修饰。当我看Prep08笔记时看到这一块时，也感觉和OG13中的25题矛盾了。以下是Prep08笔记中夹心修饰的

内容：
补充说明：
1. 关于夹心修饰 (by aeoluseros)：
所以歧义修饰，是因为引发了不同的理解，而并不是语法上是否会有不同的修饰，所谓夹心修饰也是这个原则。很多人对“夹心修饰”都有过一个误解，认为S, v-ing, V. + O.结构中，v-ing既可以往前修饰S，也可以往后修饰V就是夹心，而实际上夹心并不是“可以往前修饰S，也可以往后修饰V” 。在S, v-ing, V. + O.这样的表达中，v-ing约定俗成只伴随修饰动词，见下例：prep 2-104 The yield per acre of coffee berries varies enormously, because a single tree, depending on its size and on climate and altitude, is able to produce enough berries to make between one and twelve pounds of dried beans a year.
这个句子里depending不能改为dependent，因为depending和dependent的区别在于，前者伴随修饰谓语动词is able to produce，后者则是修饰名词single tree，会造成逻辑上不对。用dependent时："依靠于size的一棵树能够长出足够的浆果"。用depending时，“一棵树取决它的size来做到长出足够的浆果”。这里版主给夹心修饰的适用条件规定的是“S,V-ing,V.+O”。不知道版主这一规则严格不，就是一是S和VING中能否有其他成分，比如介词短语，二是VING是否只能是严格的动词的不带任何时态的VING。因为如果严格的话，OG中的所有SC题没有完全适用“夹心修饰”的句子。比如OG13-25中的having amassed是个带有时态的Ving,稍微有些区别。OG13-104的A选项Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinating them with her narratives,在主语和Ving中间有个介词短语in her book illustrations。OG13-106题B选项VING前面的成分不包含主语。
如果按不严格来对待的话，第25题很明显OG自己在C选项解释到是做定语修饰前面的名词也即主语Neuroscientists。在这个帖子中有更详细的讨论，http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-648003-6-1.html。Babybearmm说到也是做定语修饰前面的名词。
第104题的A选项的解释是A The participial phrase does not clearly modify the noun in the preceding phrase; 这里OG解释分词短语（肯定是指carefully coordinaing them了）不能清除地修饰前面短语中的名词，很明显前面的短语只有一个那就是in her llustrations,所以修饰的名词也就是illustration了。所以OG还是没有说它可以向后修饰句子的谓语动词。第106题VING前面没有句子的主语，不属于夹心修饰讨论的范围。
再来仔细看看Prep08笔记给的夹心修饰的例句，这个句子我没有在OG12和OG13的所有SC句子中没有发现。其次“夹心修饰”这个概念版主没有说明出处，是哪里的权威资料里摘抄过来的？
最后我仔细读了一下，感觉depending做定语往前修饰tree也可以啊，“依靠自身的大小和气候、海拔的单一的树能够生产出足够的……”，不是完全说不通或者是逻辑看起来有很大错误啊。即使有夹心修饰这个概念，这个例句也按向后修饰来理解，但我们看到这个例句来自于Prep2，是否这个prep2是比较早的题，而OG在不断完善语法规则的同时对此有了新的定义，比如在最新的权威资料OG13
中重新定义了此语法规则：只能是往前修饰。这只是我的猜测。

所以，综合看来，按照最新的来自于OG13的规则来看，我认为逗号+VING在前面没有句子且不在句首时只能是修饰前面的名词。

enkyklios · 发表于 2013-6-21 05:02:46

我当时也是不明白A中的having amassed部分到底是做定语还是状语。找来找去，最后在C选项的解释里找到了答案。
C Amassing, like having amassed, functions as an adjective, not a verb; the sentence therefore lacks the first main verb implied by the compound verb construction and are now drawing....
我想这是OG自己说的，amassing和having amassed功能上是形容词，所以having amassed是做定语。

注意；OG说这句话的位置，它是处在一个没有谓语的句子里，所以它是形容词性。
你错误的把这个解释用到了正确选项中来，你认为既然A中是相当于一个形容词，那必然的正确选项中也是。
但我要说这是非法的，不同的地方会表现出不同的词性这是一个常识。

B选项的解释是B Phrase carefully coordinating... illogically modifies the noun that immediately precedes it: book illustrations; Potter, not the illustrations, did the coordinating.
翻译过来是carefully coordinating 不和逻辑的修饰了它前面的名词book illustration。OG在这里也没说carefully coordinating既可以同时向前修饰同时也可以向后修饰，因为这个产生歧义所以才错。它就只说了是向前修饰。所以，这里又是一个逗号+Ving做定语修饰紧挨着它前面的名词的例子

这个你也没有能明白OG解释的要领，更没有领会论坛里大家的总结精髓。不过这个和having done无关，我也不分析了。

关于Baby姐和54楼同学的“冲突”我来说一下我的看法，我当时也注意到第25题和Prep08笔记中的夹心修饰的提法有冲突，但仔细看完OG13，前后总结了一下，如下：
首先，我们要明白我们现在考的是GMAT，经过一段时间的学习大家都知道GMAT的语法和通常的语法有些不一样，它似乎更严格，有些词平时有多种意思可在某些场景下使用，但确在GMAT中不被允许使用。比如按照大家以前的语法习惯，whether和if都可以引导宾语从句，但是在GMAT里，它规定只能用whether引导。可能是if后面跟句子的时候时还可以表示是条件，意思是如果，这是我个人的理解。而且在读Manhattan的那本语法书时，它也多次提到GMAT的语法里边跟平时我们用的有点不一样。所以，结论，我们既然是在考G
，那么就一定要按照GMAT的游戏规则来出牌。那么GMAT的规则在哪里体现呢，那么最权威的莫过于OG了，而且是最新版的OG13。所以我们一切都要以OG上面的规则为准，哪怕你是这个权威，那个大牛呢，在和OG给出的规则有冲突时，一切以OG为准。

说一下我的观点；

1. 你是如何知道if在gmat中不能引导宾语从句的？ gmat官方又没有给出自己的语法来。即使mahhtaan也没有权力代表官方作这个结论。以前没有考的话有可能和命题人的喜好有关，但它绝不会把一个if引导宾语从句作为一个错误放到考题里。

2；Gmat跟平时的语法不一样，更严格或者是有，但是还是那句话他并不会把一个平常使用正确的东西放到考题中作错误选项。如果是错误的肯定还有别的更明显的错误。

3 ；OG权威是没有错的，但是要读懂，不能断章取义-----正是因为这一点所以大家才会谈论才有了CD不然买本OG都OK了。说到底og的解释并不是谁都可以读懂，这一点我们从mahattan的回答就能看出来，就连他们有时候都感觉比起gmat出的如此严谨的题来，他们的解释显得很不专业（或者og不专业，或者mahattan没读懂，你自己任选）

4；也是最关键的一点那就是不相强调gmat的特殊性，他必然存在于一般语法的框架内。想掌握gmat的脉搏还是要靠老老实实学习普通语法。

5；有的时候我们需要相信权威，有的时候我们要相信道理，只有明白了道理我们才能理解权威。我们已经再三分析了做定语是没有道理的。

enkyklios · 发表于 2013-6-21 05:09:10

楼主我做了一个贴子专门分析这个问题，自以为与别人的观点颇有不同，可以提供给你借鉴一下。http://forum.chasedream.com/foru ... &fromuid=809886
如果有不对的咱们继续谈论

zhuangzhilingy · 发表于 2013-6-21 20:40:26

enkyklios 发表于 2013-6-21 05:02
我当时也是不明白A中的having amassed部分到底是做定语还是状语。找来找去，最后在C选项的解释里找到了答案 ...

注意；OG说这句话的位置，它是处在一个没有谓语的句子里，所以它是形容词性。
你错误的把这个解释用到了正确选项中来，你认为既然A中是相当于一个形容词，那必然的正确选项中也是。
但我要说这是非法的，不同的地方会表现出不同的词性这是一个常识。
我不太明白你说的。为什么“处在一个没有谓语的句子里，所以它是形容词性”。有没有谓语和做不做形容词有什么因果关系，能否解释一下是哪里的语法概念。有谓语就做副词，没有谓语就做形容词？我实在不懂。
关于这个问题，我估计你根本没有仔细看这个帖子。这个帖子第5页第48楼baby姐的回复，她引用Ron和Stacey的经典解释以及自己的分析来说明OG13第25题那个having是做定语。这个帖子到现在差不多有14页，是关于ving的一个深度讨论的帖子，非常好，希望你从头到尾仔细看一下。

这个你也没有能明白OG解释的要领，更没有领会论坛里大家的总结精髓。不过这个和having done无关，我也不分析了。
能否详细解释一下OG的解释实际上表达的意思。大家讨论问题，尽量说清楚，也可让后面的同学能更明白。

说一下我的观点；
1. 你是如何知道if在gmat中不能引导宾语从句的？ gmat官方又没有给出自己的语法来。即使mahhtaan也没有权力代表官方作这个结论。以前没有考的话有可能和命题人的喜好有关，但它绝不会把一个if引导宾语从句作为一个错误放到考题里。
2；Gmat跟平时的语法不一样，更严格或者是有，但是还是那句话他并不会把一个平常使用正确的东西放到考题中作错误选项。如果是错误的肯定还有别的更明显的错误。
我想你也看过OG了。它里边不会像Mahanttan那样或其他专业语法书那样，很明白的告诉你某个语法点是怎样使用，它只是就题论题，比如OG13-78，A选项解释And see
should be to see; their is ambiguous; are should be have been. OG没有解释说their为什么是ambiguous？are为什么应当是have been。如果要解释清楚的话，就得用
语法规则来解释了，their是代词，涉及到代词的语法规则是指代清楚，单复数一致，人称类别一致。根据意思are改为have are语法上对应从一般现在时改为现在完成时。
OG的解释很少谈到语法规则，全凭我们自己仔细阅读和分析，然后根据多个类型一样的题从中总结出适用用GMAT的语法规则来。
至于if不能在GMAT中不能引导宾语从句，根据我上面说的，OG里肯定不会很明白的写诸如“GMAT are only allow whether but if to guide object clause”的话了。我是根据类似的OG的题分析得来的。OG13-34正确答案是B，A和B除了if和whether的不同外，其它所有单词都一样。OG13-78正确答案是C，其中是以whether引导宾语从句的，错误答案的D和E是以if开头的。Prep08笔记中第205题，250题也是以whether引导宾语从句的。而且看国外的一些论坛，也都说是GMAT中在引导宾从时whether优于if.
但它绝不会把一个if引导宾语从句作为一个错误放到考题里。看一下我刚说的OG13-34题，OG在这就是把if引导的宾语从句作为一个错误放到考题里了。
至于你说的那个3、4、5点我同意。不过第5点的“我们已经再三分析了做定语是没有道理的。”希望你从头到尾看完这个帖子后重新考虑一下。

enkyklios · 发表于 2013-6-21 20:53:24

zhuangzhilingy 发表于 2013-6-21 20:40
注意；OG说这句话的位置，它是处在一个没有谓语的句子里，所以它是形容词性。
你错误的把这个解释用到了 ...

我今天眼特别疼所以不能一一回答你的问题
但是不知道你能不能把if错误的那道题贴出来。我绝不相信gmat会违反语法。如果真是别的都相同只有if和whether的区别的话，那肯定是那个句子只能由whether来引导和if不能引导宾语从句无关

我必须指出whether的使用范围要比if广，但是if肯定可以引导宾语从句

zhuangzhilingy · 发表于 2013-6-21 22:51:57

enkyklios 发表于 2013-6-21 20:53
我今天眼特别疼所以不能一一回答你的问题
但是不知道你能不能把if错误的那道题贴出来。我绝不相信gmat会违 ...

不是都给你说了是OG13的第34题吗。
Beyond the immediate cash flow crisis that the museum faces, its survival depends on if it can broaden its membership and leave its cramped quarters for a site where it can store and exhibit its more than 12,000 artifacts.

(A) if it can broaden its membership and leave
(B) whether it can broaden its membership and leave
(C) whether or not it has the capability to broaden its membership and can leave
(D) its ability for broadening its membership and leaving
(E) the ability for it to broaden its membership and leave

if是可以引导宾语从句，但是我说的是在GMAT里引导宾语从句优先用whether

关于Ving用法—og12 sc 中21和og25比较，有点迷惑了

RE: 关于Ving用法—og12 sc 中21和og25比较，有点迷惑了

所属分类: 小分队

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块