ChaseDream

标题: 新PREP85 [打印本页]

作者: kitebird 时间: 2007-5-18 00:33
标题: 新PREP85

In 1945, after a career as First Lady in which she shattered expectations more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison ever had been, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman.

(A) more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison ever had been, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman

(B) more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison, President Harry S Truman had Eleanor Roosevelt appointed to be a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly

(C) with an audacity never matched in the case of Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison, President Harry S Truman had Eleanor Roosevelt appointed as a

delegate to the United Nations General Assembly

(D) with an audacity never matched by Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman

(E) with an audacity never matched either in the case of Abigail Adams or of Dolly Madison's, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed to be a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman

请问A的不对是不是因为audaciously不能修饰expectations?如果用audacious是不是就可以了？？

delegate to the United Nations General Assembly

(D) with an audacity never matched by Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman

请问A的不对是不是因为audaciously不能修饰expectations?如果用audacious是不是就可以了？？

作者: mbamom 时间: 2007-5-18 00:36

请问A的不对是不是因为audaciously不能修饰expectations?如果用audacious是不是就可以了？？

ever had been-------had ever done

作者: will_kk 时间: 2007-5-18 01:03

同意楼上说的,这道选什么? D? 看着好复杂~

作者: sunnyswallow 时间: 2007-5-19 22:30

audaciously修饰的不是expectations,而是shatter,意思是她更加大胆的分散其多个expectation.A的错误在于had been与前面she did sth.不平行,应该用had done

作者: kitebird 时间: 2007-5-20 12:00

恩，那天写错了，应该是audaciously修饰shatter,

但是对于楼上的说法，还有有些疑问。

时态一定要那么平行吗？不见得吧。从来都不觉得时态平行是平行中的重点，可以去否定一个选项。

还有ever had been-------had ever done，到是一个问题。但是是致命的？？

请路过的再来讨论讨论

作者: cancerbobo 时间: 2007-5-21 13:03

以下是引用mbamom在2007-5-18 0:36:00的发言：

请问A的不对是不是因为audaciously不能修饰expectations?如果用audacious是不是就可以了？？

ever had been-------had ever done

这是主要的问题,前面没出现be的某种形式，不能用do代替的

作者: kitebird 时间: 2007-5-21 23:04
不能理解成是had been （shattered）的省略吗？

作者: kitebird 时间: 2007-5-23 23:26
再顶一下

作者: gonghao 时间: 2007-5-23 23:43

以下是引用kitebird在2007-5-21 23:04:00的发言：
不能理解成是had been （shattered）的省略吗？

不能，之前没有类似结构对应

作者: racing78 时间: 2007-6-21 23:29
我的看法是比的东西不一样,audaciously是修饰shatter,所以应该是比较shatter,只要后面接的是be动词就错,必须接had+过去分词

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-6-21 23:29:54编辑过]

作者: 7barbara1986 时间: 2007-6-21 23:57
答案是什么撒///有人知道不。

作者: maomm 时间: 2007-7-3 00:56

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