作者: howardwang 时间: 2005-9-1 10:59
only E.
作者: autist11 时间: 2005-9-1 11:16
what's wrong with C? missing "were"?
作者: howardwang 时间: 2005-9-1 12:16
c的问题：
（1）在整个句子中，federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers是什么成份？
（2）while在此作何解释？表对比转折还是什么呢？逻辑意思和词的位置都有问题。
作者: Youknowme 时间: 2005-10-15 21:19
同意E
作者: GMAT阿驴 时间: 2006-3-13 16:09
support E
作者: hwhhs 时间: 2006-7-6 11:08
.
作者: mockingbird 时间: 2006-9-23 01:12
应该是C。从语法角度讲C和E都是正确的。从逻辑意思上看C合理的多：在法案实施以前，违反版权法的罚款也是不过是轻描淡写，
C：原告不究而被告轻判。说明怎样的轻描淡写。
E：因此，原告不究而被告轻判。逻辑上并没有因果关系。
作者: wcfang 时间: 2006-11-26 15:31
原句:...charge, and federal prosecutors are unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.
獨立主格: ...charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.
being省略: ...charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.在句意中，表示對比的連接詞應該用while or whereas (or but), 不用and...
因此，C比E好...
作者: heshaohua666 时间: 2006-12-6 16:40
独立主格修饰句子表原因或伴随，这里行不通。
作者: heshaohua666 时间: 2006-12-13 00:22
Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.
- charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
- charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
- charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were[h1]
- charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
- charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were[h2]
作者: xiangqinzh 时间: 2007-1-3 11:17
therefore 是副词,不能做连词用,在之前需要一个分号把2个句子分开.
作者: colorful_na 时间: 2007-7-14 18:39
UP
作者: wsdoll 时间: 2007-9-17 11:43
up
作者: michaelshl 时间: 2008-4-28 01:33
ai...楼上蜘蛛侠nn。。。就是读不懂啊
作者: lichabrend 时间: 2008-6-12 00:34
up
作者: aegean040 时间: 2008-6-23 15:15
怎么就不能理解为伴随结构呢？做主句的解释啊，我认为C的逻辑没有错。是不是做伴随结构中不能用从句？while...错了？
作者: AlienX 时间: 2008-6-23 15:27
如果是隨伴, 該用..., verb-ing...
作者: duducrystal 时间: 2009-5-17 12:11
还是米搞懂也。。哪位NN来个明确的说法。。
作者: 忽闪闪院长 时间: 2009-5-17 16:21
我本来选的是C。但是后来想了想，如果把federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers理解成独立主格结构的话，那么while与它平行也必须是个独立主格结构，可是while后面明显是连接了一个句子……所以排除C……不知这样的解释对否？
作者: AlienX 时间: 2009-5-18 09:03
umm...我對C的看法有點不一樣
獨立主格是supplement的東東, 拿走不影響原意.
所以C的主要structure 是: a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.
邏輯不對.
作者: Norgar 时间: 2009-7-30 02:08
en
作者: sprins 时间: 2009-8-31 17:52
应该是C。从语法角度讲C和E都是正确的。从逻辑意思上看C合理的多：在法案实施以前，违反版权法的罚款也是不过是轻描淡写，
C：原告不究而被告轻判。说明怎样的轻描淡写。
E：因此，原告不究而被告轻判。逻辑上并没有因果关系。
支持E
原句说知道1982才通过PCAA 句中其他的描述内容全都是发生在1982之前的状况 从未划线was和划线的were可以看出
这样的话 用therefore还是有一定道理的
“盗版是轻错 所以检察官不会别人违反判版权罪 而被告也只会要求教一小部分罚款”
如果是C的话 由于federal prosewcutors................这个结构中没有v.导致while无从修饰
正如AlienX版主所说while会去修饰未划线的部分
作者: zanyingsan 时间: 2009-12-9 21:56
a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.
关于这个，我不知道哪里逻辑不对了，while在这里不可以表示同时的意思么？
作者: a9141067s 时间: 2009-12-15 15:53
關於這一句的句意還是不大明白,可否請那位NN幫忙翻譯一下
作者: nancyyen 时间: 2009-12-15 16:37
到底选啥，大牛们快来~我自己觉得选E，主要觉得C中间的成分不清楚。。
作者: kingstorm666 时间: 2010-7-31 11:43
DING
作者: gmgmwll 时间: 2010-9-1 00:35
up！！
作者: 花子落落 时间: 2010-9-1 01:24
in C, the pattern " main clause, noun +adjective phrase or which clause" is used when noun refers to entire main clause. This is not logic. for example,
she is beautiful, a fact which I know----this is correct
作者: 花子落落 时间: 2010-9-1 01:28
in the case of parallelism:
if the sentence contains PARALLEL CONCEPTS -- i.e., concepts that describe the same sort of thing, in the same sort of way, at the same priority -- then those concepts should appear in parallel structures.
conversely, for concepts that are NOT parallel, you can't use parallelism as a process of elimination.
in this problem:
there are three historical statements:
1) a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor
2) federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue infringers
3) offenders were subject to small penalties
note that, of these three statements, only #2 and #3 are PARALLEL CONCEPTS.
specifically, the first is an independent historical statement, while #2 and #3 are both CONSEQUENCES of that statement (consequences that are presented with equal priority).
therefore, the sentence should be written in a way such that #2 and #3 are parallel.
C明显不parallel
作者: laipipi 时间: 2010-11-27 15:37
Ding
作者: 赵小婕 时间: 2010-12-17 15:27
10楼正解
作者: pizzahutgg 时间: 2011-4-1 16:09
按平行和意思来判断的确是这样的
但是E里面多了个therefore，新加进了一个强烈的因果关系，不太敢选了。。。
作者: whenusmile 时间: 2011-11-10 19:36
C哪对了？？？明明就是run on sentence啊，两个句子之间没有连词。。
作者: 羊驼月月在奋斗 时间: 2014-10-14 11:47
赞同C存在两点错误：
1：unlikely to purse criminal copyright infringers 和 offenders were subject to relatively small penalties 在逻辑上是顺次的，没有转折关系，所以while用在这里不对。
2：如果把federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers理解成为独立主格结构伴随主句，那么while后面的内容也应该一起做独立主格伴随主句，而从语法上来看，while从句似乎构成了和主句之间的转折并列，不符合语义。
最开始没有选E是因为不理解therefore在这里的作用，后来在语义上想了下，其实是可以说得通的，是因为a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge这样一种状况，才会有一下的行为 federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties，构成了一种逻辑上的因果。
还请NN指正呢~
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |