ChaseDream

标题: 做对了，就成高手？？ [打印本页]

作者: felix2816 时间: 2003-9-29 22:09
标题: 做对了，就成高手？？
welcome for discussiong about these questions! thx every participant!!

8.One pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut; by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored.
(A) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored
(B) persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(C) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, it restored market equilibrium
(D) the persuasion of people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(E) market equilibrium was restored when people were persuaded to eat former horse feed

9.Art museums do not usually think of their collections as capital or consider the interest income that would be generated if a portion of the capital would have been invested in another form.
(A) be generated if a portion of the capital would have been
(B) have been generated if a portion of the capital would have been
(C) be generated if a portion of the capital were
(D) be generated if a portion of the capital was
(E) be generated if a portion of the capital had been

作者: gemj 时间: 2003-9-29 22:17
第8题我是错了无数次，现在还是不很清楚怎么回事。
第9题我倒是觉得可以与下面的这个结构类比：
If I were you, I would…

作者: nettalker 时间: 2003-9-29 23:19
8、e;
a,b,c的主语逻辑关系都不对。d更是逻辑+修饰混乱。只能是e采用被动语态

9、c 虚拟

作者: gemj 时间: 2003-9-29 23:37
可是第8题的正确答案是B啊？

作者: gemj 时间: 2003-9-29 23:40
又查了XDF的原稿，的确是B。

作者: nettalker 时间: 2003-9-29 23:51
我个人认为新东方的原稿不一定必定正确，例如LZM书中就有一处明显错误（OG原题却与OG答案不一致）。其次：95.8-00年TOEFL语法中东方就有多处语法错误选项，不知道在课堂上改正没有。再次，这些都是老题了，那时东方的老师水平也未见得就到了每题必对的水平。以其杰出代表LZM为例，他的书中错误就太多了。当然，LZM至少在当时还是挺厉害的

作者: nettalker 时间: 2003-9-29 23:57
再举一例，我也上过石林的语法，但是当我拿着东方补充教材的多道题问他时，他却无一例外做错（后来我终于搞明白了原答案是正确的）。另外，石林上课时多道题说ETS出错题了，甚至说OG答案错了，或者出题思路不对。其实后来我搞明白后才发现还是他自己错了。

作者: gemj 时间: 2003-9-30 00:04
别的我不敢肯定，但至少XDF给出的所有逻辑答案（包括LAST）都是对的。
LZM的书里的答案好象只有一处是错误的。
但上面的两条理由都不能证明XDF给出的这题的答案就是对的。
的确有错的可能性。
但可能性相对较小。

作者: felix2816 时间: 2003-9-30 01:47
谢过。8题到底为何选B？我认为：
one pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut;分号后应是完整句子啊？？B来个persuading....horse feed是现在名词短语,作主语，restored 是谓语。
E是被动式，不如B的主动态好！！

欢迎批平！

作者: jq_jou 时间: 2003-9-30 11:44
标题: 问一下: 哪儿可以找到这些题?
THX

作者: gemj 时间: 2003-9-30 12:34
OG和885里就有。

作者: remeo 时间: 2003-9-30 15:49

以下是引用gemj在2003-9-29 22:17:00的发言：
第8题我是错了无数次，现在还是不很清楚怎么回事。
第9题我倒是觉得可以与下面的这个结构类比：
If I were you, I would…

one pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut; by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored.
(a) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored
(b) persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(c) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, it restored market equilibrium
(d) the persuasion of people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(e) market equilibrium was restored when people were persuaded to eat former horse feed

在b和e之间我考虑了一下，此处如果用e的话，不好之处有二：
1）只能表达出market equilibrium was restored和people were persuaded to eat former horse feed是同时发生的，却并没有表明两者之间真正想要表达的因果联系，b则很清楚地表达了这一点
2）e中market equilibrium was restored缺少可行的逻辑主语，没有b所表达的意思完整。

其实这和og上一道题很相似，主要是涉及到when从句做状语所表达的意义不够清晰。
我记得og上那题是在and 连接的2个谓语动词和when从句之间选择，og选择了and，解释就是我上面所说的。

不知我说的有道理否？还请指正。

作者: gemj 时间: 2003-9-30 20:47
我觉得remeo说的有一定道理。

但我对这个题目的理解是：
E不对，原因在于“former horse feed”，因为人不可能去吃“以前的马食”，只能吃“what had previously been horse feed”；
A不对，因为by persuading的逻辑主语好像是market equilibrium，逻辑不通；
C不对，除了与A同样的原因外，还因为IT没有合理的指代对象。
这三点，我都比较肯定。

而对于D，我觉得问题可能出在“the persuasion of people to eat”中后面的“to eat”，因为我查了“美国传统词典”，有这样的例句：
The persuasion of a democracy to big changes is at best a slow process (Harold J. Laski)
“要民主国家做重大变革，最好能缓慢进行”(哈罗德J.拉斯基)

TO后面跟的是名词，也就是说TO是作介词用，我现在的疑问是，这里的TO后面能象 the ability of sb to do sth 中的TO那样跟动词吗？
或者，D为什么错呢？

作者: joice 时间: 2003-9-30 21:10
8, B is right.

作者: gemj 时间: 2003-9-30 21:14
谢谢joice，我知道答案是B，你能帮解释一下D为何错吗？

作者: nettalker 时间: 2003-9-30 22:13
8、
persuading people to eat 动名词做restored的主语逻辑上不太通。实际上restore的主语在此不清楚，实际上也没必要搞清楚，因为此句意思重点在于market equilibrium was restored。
因此直接用被动表示更合理。记得og还是东方补充材料上有一题就是如此，找不到合适的主动发起者，就用了被动语态。实际上生活中很多地方表客观事实，不需要强调发起者时都可能用被动语态。
个人意见

作者: gemj 时间: 2003-9-30 22:17
那你能不能帮着解释一下E中的“former horse feed”呢？谢谢！

作者: solome 时间: 2003-9-30 23:03
我是从原句要表达的意思上面推的选b ,
是通过persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed的手段，
达到这个目的market equilibrium was restored.所以要把它放在主语的位置。
而e中使用的when从句，感觉上是在强调一种时间条件

作者: joice 时间: 2003-9-30 23:47

以下是引用gemj在2003-9-30 21:14:00的发言：
谢谢joice，我知道答案是B，你能帮解释一下D为何错吗？

B is neat. E i feel :
1. B says what restore M.E and E says when M.E happen.
2. E use passive verb + no agency of action.

作者: felix2816 时间: 2003-10-1 01:27
support Joice's opinion!

作者: nettalker 时间: 2003-10-2 00:12
The following comments come from an American guy, who scored 800 in GMAT several weeks ago, with only one week preparation.

1.One pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in
the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which
led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut; (by
persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market
equilibrium was restored).
(a) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed,
market equilibrium was restored
(b) persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed
restored market equilibrium
(c) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, it
restored market equilibrium
(d) the persuasion of people to eat what had previously been horse feed
restored market equilibrium
(e) market equilibrium was restored when people were persuaded to eat
former horse feed

B.

A is wrong because there is no subject.

C is wrong because "it" has no antecedent - what does it refer to?

D is just awkward. "The persuasion of people" is hen mafan.

E is wrong because "former horse feed" should be something that
literally used to be horse feed - not something that would have been
used as horse feed.

B works - "persuading people to eat..." is the subject. "what had
previously been horse feed" is less direct so it can mean something that
previously would have been horse feed but is not now.

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)