ChaseDream
标题: 召唤大牛，这题的伴随状语修饰的部分非同寻常啊 [打印本页]
作者: 921075453 时间: 2015-9-16 15:01
标题: 召唤大牛，这题的伴随状语修饰的部分非同寻常啊
134. 来自prep 07
Among lower-paid workers, union membersare less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in
lower-end insurance plans imposingstricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see
more patients, and spend less time witheach.
(A) imposing stricter limits on medicalservices and requiring doctors to see more patients, and
spend
(B) imposing stricter limits on medicalservices, requiring doctors to see more patients, and
spending
(C) that impose stricter limits onmedical services, require doctors to see more patients, and spend
(D) that impose stricter limits onmedical services and require doctors to see more patients,
spending
(E) that impose stricter limits onmedical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and
spending
答案选择的是D，其他选项的错误我都能懂，但是D选项是怎么回事，spending修饰了see，可是我明明记得comma+ving形式的修饰是preceding clause里面的entire action 和里面的subject，但是这里的修饰怎么变成了see
see明明是doctors的
作者: zszszssz 时间: 2015-9-16 16:55
我不知道你在哪看的说是修饰see，不过这里明显是结果状语：可以让医生看更多病人，（结果）每个人耗时都减少了。
作者: angeliasilvia 时间: 2015-9-16 20:42
同意楼上，做require doctors to see patients的结果状语，并不是用来修饰see
作者: 921075453 时间: 2015-9-16 23:04
来自 ron的解答（http://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/among-lower-paid-workers-union-members-are-less-likely-t1904.html）
you have to realize which verbs are supposed to be parallel and which aren't. there's no grammatical formula for this; you have to examine the meaning of the sentence to figure it out.
- 'impose' (in whatever form) should be parallel to 'require' (again, in whatever form). these are two different things, both of which are aspects of the plan (= logical parallelism).
- 'spend' should not be parallel to 'see', because it functions as a modifier of 'see' (it's a descriptive adverb modifier, detailing the way in which the doctors see the patients).
作者: 921075453 时间: 2015-9-16 23:05
来自 ron的解答（http://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/among-lower-paid-workers-union-members-are-less-likely-t1904.html）
you have to realize which verbs are supposed to be parallel and which aren't. there's no grammatical formula for this; you have to examine the meaning of the sentence to figure it out.
- 'impose' (in whatever form) should be parallel to 'require' (again, in whatever form). these are two different things, both of which are aspects of the plan (= logical parallelism).
- 'spend' should not be parallel to 'see', because it functions as a modifier of 'see' (it's a descriptive adverb modifier, detailing the way in which the doctors see the patients).
作者: angeliasilvia 时间: 2015-9-17 08:42
RON的解释就是说作状语，跟二楼说的是一样的，修饰前面的动作，曼哈顿语法里有这样一个地方是这么讲的，第6版CHANPTER4 59页，Superficial Parallelism vs, Actual Parallelism,举了这样一个例子，不知道楼主有没有看过，Sal applied himself in his job, arriving early every day, skipping lunch regularly, AND leaving late every night.
曼哈顿对这句话的解释是这样的：The main clause, applied himself in his new job, is not parallel to these participle phrases. This is CORRECT. The main verb is applied, and the -ing phrases provide additional information about how Sal applied himself. It would distort the meaning to change the sentence to this superficially parallel version:Sal applied himself in his new job, arrived early every day, skipped lunch regularly, AND left late every night. This version gives all the activities equal emphasis, instead of making the last three activities subordinate to the main acivity.
以上摘自曼哈顿的这一part其实跟RON的说法如出一辙，后面Ing的这个形式确实是说去补充see这个动词的additional information,但是按照中文的思维去解释，我会更倾向于解释成做前面这个动作的结果状语，说明前一个句子整体上对后面一个对象的作用
作者: angeliasilvia 时间: 2015-9-17 08:51
楼主有时候不必说非要觉得逗号+v-ing形式就一定是说前面整个句子导致后面的东西，所以导致楼主认为spending一定不是只是修饰see的，gmat语法灵活多变，不是单单靠一个rule就框死了，楼主更应该看中整句话的逻辑，很明显，如果spending做前面整句话的一个结果状语是不合逻辑的，而ABCE很明显的逻辑上有问题，如果是and spend,那么就跟are less likely平行，逻辑上讲不通，each指代也不清楚了，肯定是错的。如果是and spending那跟前面的imposing一起做Plans的状语，更不通，palns怎么spend less time? E选项的require 和spend整个动作的发出者变成了Member,而原文逻辑上是想require的主语是Plan，逻辑上也错误。
只剩下D，但是楼主一定觉得comma+v-ing结构就一定是前面整句导致后面的行为，这样就觉得错误了，但是楼主思考一下，D选项，就两种可能，一种是楼主所认为的前面整句话导致spending,一种就是doctors see导致的，很明显逻辑上马上就回排除第一种可能，所以只剩下后面这种可能了，按照逻辑也一定不会造成歧义；即使楼主仍旧认为它是错误的，但在5个选项里也是相对优的选项
作者: 921075453 时间: 2015-9-17 22:18
thanks 解答的非常详细，也让我对GMAT的语法有了更深的了解，在CD论坛上很少遇到这么热心的考友了
作者: angeliasilvia 时间: 2015-9-17 22:23
我接触gmat有一年多了，这次最后刷一次就去申请，一般考前我都会在线解答网友问题的，方便自己回忆
作者: 921075453 时间: 2015-9-18 23:30
NN能帮我看看这个问题吗
The clothes looked more appealing inside the store than on the racks outside.
The clothes inside the store looked more appealing than on the racks outside.
第一句话是对的，第二句话是错的，我对介词的位置导致句子歧义方面的理解有瓶颈，还望帮我点拔一下
作者: angeliasilvia 时间: 2015-9-19 09:54
介词的位置有时候也会产生语义的不同，你也不能说第一句就是错的，两句话只是意思上表达不同，第一句的意识是说，这件衣服在商店里的时候比放在外面的行李架上看上去更吸引人。
第二句话的意思是，那件在商店里的衣服比另外一件放在外面行李架上的衣服看上去更吸引人。
第一句是介词的比较，说的是同一件衣服；而第二句就是名词间的比较，说的是两件不同的衣服。
你要看题目想要表达哪种逻辑意思，就选哪句。
作者: 921075453 时间: 2015-9-19 16:49
哈，我明白了，感谢答复
作者: hoshinoo 时间: 2022-9-8 12:04
Mark一下！
作者: hoshinoo 时间: 2022-9-8 12:10
个人理解哈，如有不当之处还希望指正。
第一句是指“同一件衣服，在店里看起来比在店外看更有吸引力”，强调“看”这个动作发生的场合。
第二句是指“店里的衣服比店外的衣服看起来更有吸引力”，比较的是衣服（在店里vs在店外），所以第二句错误，少了一个代词that ->The clothes inside the store looked more appealing than that on the racks outside.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |