ChaseDream

标题: 请教OG-159 [打印本页]

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-4-15 09:59
标题: 请教OG-159
159. While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they are potentially devastating for home-owners, whose equity--in many cases representing a life's savings--can plunge or even disappear.

they are potentially devastating for homeowners, whose
they can potentially devastate homeowners in i. that their
for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their
it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose

答案:A,我觉得B更好.devastate是及物动词,B中的they 直接指代homeowners,为什么A比B更好呢?谢谢.

另外,OG的解释说: can potentially is redundant in B 我不明白为什么redundant?

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-4-15 10:01:20编辑过]

作者: 小兵张嘎 时间: 2003-4-15 10:14
1、can和 potentially都表或然性，表达重复。
2、they---investors 和their----homeowners指代不一致

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-4-15 10:31
???

作者: 1stzhang 时间: 2003-4-15 19:17
解题思路：
（1）没有其他问题，从动词入手，由于devastate 的发出者是depressed property values 把d/e先扔掉。
（2）再看a/b/c，发现c for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
的第一个they会产生歧义，扔。
（３）比较a/b,，我们暂时不管potentially 和can 不能连用，看后面a是whose ,b 用的是in that their ,因为主句的主语是they,如果用b这种结构their完全可以作为they的物主格使句子产生歧义。so, A

作者: smilinglan 时间: 2003-4-19 23:52

以下是引用小兵张嘎在2003-4-15 10:14:00的发言：
1、can和 potentially都表或然性，表达重复。
2、they---investors 和their----homeowners指代不一致

我同意小嘎的看法！

我再来详细说说，B选项最致命的一个错误就是代词指代，在同一个句子中，代词指代一定要一致，也就是说B中的they 和their 应相同指代。they 肯定是指depressed property values ,而按照一致性原则their 也应该指depressed property values ,但是根据句子的意思.很显然their 应该指代homeowner's

作者: siebel 时间: 2003-4-20 00:17

以下是引用joywzy在2003-4-15 9:59:00的发言：
159. While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they are potentially devastating for home-owners, whose equity--in many cases representing a life's savings--can plunge or even disappear.

they are potentially devastating for homeowners, whose
they can potentially devastate homeowners in i. that their
for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their
it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose

偶这样做的这题：
it ==> DE X
for ==> CD X
can ==> B X. 因为：没有特殊理由，不可加情态动词。

so A is left, although "devastating for " is a little strange to me. 事实上，我是做完题对答案时才发现devastating for挺别扭。

仔细看来，b中的in that很没来头，无法还原。in owners? in values?

作者: mindfree 时间: 2003-4-20 00:18
还有一点关于你所说的devastate是及物动词的问题. 在美国英语中, devastating用的远远多与其动词形式. 很多人动不动就说It is devastating (心理建设不足, 主要是没有三个代表).

作者: cocoabean 时间: 2004-5-7 06:12

仔细看来，b中的in that很没来头，无法还原。in owners? in values?

Here, "in that "should means: ph.1. 因为, right?

作者: longyear 时间: 2004-11-9 01:08

以下是引用mindfree在2003-4-20 0:18:00的发言：
还有一点关于你所说的devastate是及物动词的问题. 在美国英语中, devastating用的远远多与其动词形式. 很多人动不动就说It is devastating (心理建设不足, 主要是没有三个代表).

哦，明白了，这里devastating是做adj用，即，对homeowners而言，这种depressed property values可能是毁灭性的...

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