标题: prep笔记251（GWD-1-Q29）的疑惑 [打印本页] 作者: yokohama 时间: 2015-8-1 23:42 标题: prep笔记251（GWD-1-Q29）的疑惑 251： Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.
A. Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been
cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not
count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.
B. Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, a new
study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the
100 million votes cast were not counted.
C. Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million
to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential
election, a new study estimates.
D. A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling
places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been
counted in the 2000 United States presidential election.
E. A new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing
ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.（B）
我选的c，当然我看了解释知道c的错误是［citing］的主语是｛4m to 6m｝，逻辑错误。
但是，我读了B也不懂。
B说：引用了错误的投票工具，混乱的投票。。。，一个新研究表明2000年总统选举中有4-6m选票没算....！
请问a new study做citing主语合适吗？！ 很显然用错方法的主语应该是2000年的选举啊！为什么是study？
难道意思是｛new study用了错误的方法得出一个结论，就是2000年那事情是错的。｝
原题：
Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.
A. Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been
cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not
count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.
在这里谓语是”cited“，是重要的动作，又被被动语态表达了一遍之后变得更“重要” （被强调）；相反，estimate在which引导的非限制性定语从句中，作形容词作用，变得不重要，这一点改变原意！！！
B. Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, a new
study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the
100 million votes cast were not counted.
改成常见的的句子：citing x,y, and z, study has estimated that...前面的citing到逗号前都是形容词！！ 形容study！！！这是个什么study？这是引用过错误后的study！！所以我们可以说 some kind of study has estimated that... cite不重要，可以省略，estimate是谓语。正确！
C. Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million
to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential
election, a new study estimates.
主语是4-6 million，citing 后面的东西修饰的事4-6 m votes。汉语意思："引用过这些缺陷的4-6 百万张选票没有被数进去”，错误！
D. A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling
places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been
counted in the 2000 United States presidential election.
句子强调的时“引用缺陷”而不是“估计数量”：cite是谓语！此外这句话 “in estimating that..."不通顺
E. A new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing
ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.
这里”citing...polling places"修饰的对象不明确！是修饰 study呢还是修饰election呢？
此外我认为“had been counted”的出现说明了“has estimated”是错误的！！！应该用estimated。作者: yokohama 时间: 2015-8-2 22:20