ChaseDream

标题: OG 11th- 62 [打印本页]

作者: yahnbin 时间: 2007-5-4 04:37
标题: OG 11th- 62

62.
A 1972 agreement between Canada
and the United States
reduced
the amount of phosphates that
municipalities had been allowed to dump
into the Great Lakes.

A.
reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had
been allowed to dump

B.
reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been
dumping

C.
reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to
dump

D.
reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are
allowed to dump

E.
reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by
municipalities

Verb form + Idiom

An agreement that occurred in 1972 is
correctly described with the past tense verb reduced. Since the
dumping continues into the present, the past perfect verb had been allowed should instead be the present are allowed.

A Had been allowed should be are allowed

B The phosphate amount should be the amount of phosphate; the meaning of the sentence is changed by the
omission of any form of
allow

C     The
present tense reduces should be the past tense
        reduced; the phosphate amount should be
        the amount of phosphate, have been allowed should be are allowed

D
Correct. The past tense reduced is correctly used in this
sentence to describe a past action, and the present tense are allowed is used to describe the
present situation.

E
The present tense reduces should be the past
tense reduced;
allowed for dumping is an incorrect idiom;
allowed for dumping by municipalities is awkward

当初选A

认为allow要先被完成(had been allowed)，才能被reduce。

但解释说要用现在式 (are allowed)，因为是现在时态，请问从哪点可以看得出来allow是要用现在时态呢？

题目中也提到了1972，为什麽还是现在式呢？

作者: meggie_xm 时间: 2007-5-4 07:32
看og地解释，72年以前就被允许dump，72年以后也允许，只是72年的agreement reduced而已，你选择过去完成时，就意味着现在不可以dump，但是这样与reduce矛盾，所以没有办法只能选择那个现在时，仔细想想……

作者: yahnbin 时间: 2007-5-4 11:59
感谢meggie_xm的回答
所以意思是如果我用了had been dumped
就代表dumped这个动作已经结束
也不可能再被reduce了

这样我就懂了

作者: welldone2007 时间: 2007-5-4 21:56

I made a wrong choice too. Now I think the “that clause” modifies phosphates, rather than “amount”.

“Phosphates” are always allowed to dump, so a present tense. If that clause modifies “amount”, “had been allowed” is correct.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

作者: meggie_xm 时间: 2007-5-9 11:39

以下是引用welldone2007在2007-5-4 21:56:00的发言：

I made a wrong choice too. Now I think the “that clause” modifies phosphates, rather than “amount”.

“Phosphates” are always allowed to dump, so a present tense. If that clause modifies “amount”, “had been allowed” is correct.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

不同意楼上的观点，that clause不可能修饰amount，that clause是定语从句修饰前面的名次，that在定语从句中作宾语，我这样写句子你可能会更明白，allow the mini...to dump the phosphates to the great lake,但是不能说allow the mini....to dump the amount of phos...to the great lake.哎呀，我也不知道我表达清晰了没有，你凑合看吧，嘻嘻说不明白了呢，你明白我的意思吗？不明白我们在交流吧……

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