ChaseDream

标题: OG-67,100 ETS不喜欢啥 [打印本页]

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-10-24 17:41
标题: OG-67,100 ETS不喜欢啥
67. Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers provide workers with unpaid leave so as to care for sick or newbom children.

provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they
to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can
provide workers with unpaid leave and
Choices A, C, and E are ungrammatical because, in this context, requiring ... employers must be followed by an infinitive. These options display additional faults: in A, so as to fails to specify that the workers receiving the leave will be the people caring for the infants and children; in order that they, as used in C, is imprecise and unidiomatic; and E says that the bill being debated would require the employers themselves to care for the children. Choice B offers the correct infinitive, to provide, but contains the faulty so as to. Choice D is best.

为什么说:in order that they, as used in C, is imprecise and unidiomatic;
??

100. Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, and Minnesota have

begun to enforce statewide bans prohibiting landfills to accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings.

prohibiting landfills to accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings
prohibiting that landfills accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings
prohibiting landfills from accepting leaves, brush, and grass clippings
that leaves, brush, and grass clippings cannot be accepted in landfills
that landfills cannot accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings
Choice C is the best answer. Either of the following constructions would be idiomatic here: x forbids y to do z or x prohibits y from doing z. Choices A and B violate idiom;

\ D and E introduce constructions that, in context, are faulty. First of all, both bans that x cannot be done and bans that y cannot do x are unidiomatic formulations. Secondly, the negative cannot after bans is illogical.

下面这段话如何理解?
D and E introduce constructions that, in context, are faulty. First of all, both bans that x cannot be done and bans that y cannot do x are unidiomatic formulations. Secondly, the negative cannot after bans is illogical.

谢谢.

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-10-27 8:18:56编辑过]

作者: braveMBA 时间: 2003-10-24 23:23
67、in order that 在GMAT里被认为是不正规的表达方式，就象instead of，但是不是绝对的，如果选项里有其他的合理的表达方式，例如SO THAT，就应该关注，但建议不把这个倾向作为最高优先级，还是先从其他方面排除。另外in order to通常也被认为是WORDY的，因为可以用TO直接表达，但是要比较选项。同时，SO AS TO的逻辑主语是句子主语，例如A、B，明显出现了逻辑意思上的错误，这也是需要注意的。

100、我觉得主要是句子意思，BANS是禁止一种行为，这种行为应该是“landfills accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings ”，而不是CANNOT，否则就变成支持它了，双重否定。

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-10-27 08:14
brave GG,

T100,明白了.意思太重要了.

T67,关于ETS认为不喜欢的表达方式,可我们中学中有的认为对的,GG有没有总结过?
in order that
in order to
because of doing
on account of doing

还有什么吗?GG若有总结过的,可否发给我一份.谢谢.

作者: braveMBA 时间: 2003-10-27 09:39
我没有总结过这个语法点，不过从做题过程中你会明显地感觉到，如果在句子中其他没有什么可比的了，则个人认为：
so that> so ... as to > in order to > in order that

Because of / On account of / Despite/ Despite for/ Except for / Account for 这些词通常会在句首做原因状语，ETS倾向于直接加名词，不加动名词.

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-10-27 09:56
谢谢,我在做题中再总结吧.

作者: snow_mountain 时间: 2004-4-19 08:20
同意,情态还是很重要的.

作者: weiyu 时间: 2004-4-19 08:38

我来迟了，同意情态动词的保留。除非其它意思代情态动词的选项逻辑意思错误

作者: dreadpower 时间: 2004-4-19 09:51

参见OG171解释：

OG67, 施动者employers, 被动者workers, 而后面的so that从句的主语要求是workers, 这样, 造成in order that不可以, 而只能用so that.
相对的OG171里面, 施动者King, 被动者queen, so that的主语he(King), 这时in order that 就可以和so that互换了.
因此, in order that语气比较强, 对应的是施动者, 而so that 就比较灵活, 应用范围也比较广

作者: jnlvo 时间: 2004-4-19 11:06

比较赞同dreadpower的观点。我想也许还可从另一个角度看这个问题：

in order that本身应该是appropriate，但为什么og67中说"in order that they" is imprecise and unidiomatic。我想in order that they首先是跟主句的谓语is debating，这样说不过去；接下来可能是跟requiring，意思上是对的，但我想其次的对应首先可能是in order that之前最近的动词provide，这样就成certain employers provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they care for sick or newbom children.显然有问题，因为理解上应该是bill的目的，所以imprecise。

so that表结果，不存在这种情况，跟require和provide都说得通。

og171不存在这个问题，in order that 无论是跟sought 或是跟 have annulled 都说的通，所以og说in order that是an appropriate conjunction。

我想如果a bill requires certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they care for sick or newbom children.单独作句，in order that 可能是可以的，因为它首先对应谓语require，但如果是象og67这种结构，它就肯定是imprecise and unidiomatic 了。

sb1 do sb2 to do sth.in order thatsb2这种结构，有没有可能对，还要检验，很可能根本就是imprecise and unidiomatic 。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-4-19 11:14:22编辑过]

作者: tianwan 时间: 2004-4-19 11:41

可能还是那个can的问题。C就是少了一个can，不能说ETS不喜欢in order that。

目的状语从句中，in order that比so that更加正式，so that更常用；感觉in order that和so that没有任何意思上和用法上的差别。

作者: rt316 时间: 2004-5-1 09:45

我认为67中OG说的是'in order that they, as used in C, is imprecise and unidiomatic', OG并没有仅仅指in order that这个结构，所以，由于they的缘故，使得这个结构指代混乱；而171由于he明显是指King，因为King和Queen在性别上是可以区分的，所以in order that没有错；至于67中unidiomatic，我比较赞同braveMBA的观点，至于can的使用，我觉得也是一个关键的地方。

作者: Tiangel 时间: 2004-8-1 22:10

如上braveMBA所说“SO AS TO的逻辑主语是句子主语”那么171A的SO AS TO marry就说明了是句子的主语king能与Anne结婚，那么A不就对了么？

作者: 小鱼儿 时间: 2004-8-1 23:03
so as to 好象只能用在简单系表结构中吧？感觉一般句中动词非be动词时都用so that

作者: Tiangel 时间: 2004-8-3 12:28

刚才查了OG100发现真像小鱼儿说的“so as to 好象只能用在简单系表结构中吧？感觉一般句中动词非be动词时都用so that ”

但是问题是OG中解释171的错误时说A does not specify who is to marry Anne 而并没有说so as to只能用于系表结构啊？可能是我钻牛角尖喽～

作者: Tiangel 时间: 2004-8-6 13:04

顶~

作者: bloodcherry 时间: 2004-8-11 23:26

我个人感觉，这道题的C用了in order that they,使人会对这个they发生疑惑，弄不清楚到底是指employer还是指workers

而D不会给人这种感觉，请指教

作者: kurtzhou 时间: 2004-10-31 17:11
一点不成熟的想法，请倒推一下，如果D中的they指代了employers的话。那so that 结构岂不是会被so as to替代（to provide 和to care的施动者全是employers，显然用so as to 简洁），所以D中的they肯定指代workers。请NN指正。

作者: drift_er 时间: 2005-6-25 17:13
17楼的逻辑推理不清楚，我也认为此题“they”指代不明。

作者: vedder 时间: 2005-9-27 15:23

“requiring certain employers provide workers with ”

的unpaid leave 什么意思啊？

作者: hopelanxyn 时间: 2007-9-14 23:28

为什摸大家都说employer是so as to 的逻辑主语呢？

其实前面应该有两个不同的事物：a billing 和 employer

　a billing 是inquiring 逻辑主语，而employer是provide逻辑主语.所以我不是很确定到底在语法上哪一个才是so as to 的逻辑主语？

help!

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