ChaseDream

标题: GWD 27-7 [打印本页]

作者: xiaoerhei 时间: 2006-8-28 22:59
标题: GWD 27-7

搜索了,但没有查到.所以发此,请NN指点.

（1） GWD-27-Q7

Providing initial evidence that airport are a larger source of pollution than they were once believed to be, environmentalists in Chicago report that the total amount of pollutant emitted annually by vehicles at O’Hare International Airport is twice as much as that which is being emitted annually by all motor vehicles in the Chicago metropolitan area.

as much as that which is being emitted annually by all
as much annually as is emitted by the
as much compared to what is annually emitted by all
that emitted annually by all
that emitted annually compared to the

参考答案

为和B不正确, twice as much...as...多好的结构呀?是不是因为annually的位置不正确?

谢先!

作者: chnp 时间: 2006-8-29 14:33
annually明显是修饰emitted的。而且应该保留all这个意思。

作者: tcyj 时间: 2007-3-4 11:41

confused, need help.

作者: 一尘 时间: 2008-4-27 06:18

ding

同问

作者: guogo 时间: 2009-4-1 04:25

D选项中，that指代the amount of pollutant,还原后应该是 .....is twice the amount of pollutant emitted annually by all vehicles.....

假设上面是正确的话，我的问题在于两个：

第一：twice 的用法为twice as many/much as; twice what 从句；twice + the +名词；没有还原前，D选项中任何一种用法都不是，还原后，符合twice the +名词的用法，那么，可以这么使用twice吗？

第二个问题：关于emitted的修饰对象，是修饰that(the amount of pollutant，核心词amount)还是修饰还原后的pollutant，如果是前者，感觉逻辑不太顺：the amount is emitted by vehicle。如果是后者，那么-ed分词修饰，可以这么使用吗？

困惑，请NN解疑，谢了先！！！

作者: andylao2000 时间: 2009-4-1 05:20
不是NN
emitted 修饰 amount, 用-ed是表被动，而不是过去分词。

作者: songlovegt 时间: 2009-4-1 06:35
twice 用法
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=23&replyid=3087188&id=31796&page=1&skin=0&Star=1

作者: xiaoniuren 时间: 2009-4-19 12:33
up

作者: desertroset 时间: 2009-7-16 13:17

annually应该修饰emit，B选项annually的位置不对，不能放在as much as 结构中间

作者: enjoygmat2013 时间: 2013-10-18 14:10
转自manhattan论坛上ron的解释:
D正确:
i think the combination of "amount" and "as much as" would be tagged as redundant and therefore wrong.

i am not 100% on this, as the gmat's usage preferences are rather slippery at times, but there's no doubt that this suggestion is inferior to the version without "as much as".

shorter versions:
amount X is twice as much as amount Y --> inferior, and possibly even wrong (redundant)
amount X is twice amount Y --> undoubtedly better
B选项错误：
the real problem is that "is" has no parallel in the first part of the comparison - i.e., the first part doesn't say "is emitted" or "are emitted" - and so the comparison is wrong.

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