ChaseDream

标题: 请教GWD25-18 [打印本页]

作者: llxx1985cn 时间: 2007-6-7 15:24
标题: 请教GWD25-18

（1） GWD-25-Q18

In contrast to environmentalist’s proposals to limit emissions of certain pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.

A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of

B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for

C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on

D. administration’s proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include

E. administration’s proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on

答案是E, D为什么不可以呢

E中为什么要用would呢

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-6-7 15:24:43编辑过]

作者: raikey 时间: 2007-6-7 15:26

与后面的the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later平行

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-6-7 15:27:25编辑过]

作者: s7s7 时间: 2007-6-7 15:54
补充楼上：a call for 不如动词表达有效；, which include 罗嗦

作者: missilezy 时间: 2007-12-12 21:47
D中restrictions, which include three such pollutants...不符合逻辑意思，不能说restriction包括三个污染物

作者: yzhao26 时间: 2008-5-22 09:53
up

作者: rorarora 时间: 2008-6-29 12:11

反正这里贸贸然的用would让我觉得有点怪异，不过为了保持并列，没办法啦。

作者: xiaoda 时间: 2008-7-1 16:10

作者: 夜凉如水 时间: 2008-8-2 20:08
没有注意到后文用了would 事后想想这里用非限制定语从句也不妥吧

作者: jane110 时间: 2008-9-26 15:50

不会有ＲＵＮ－ＯＮ　错误产生吗？如果选E

作者: 岳如初 时间: 2008-10-11 22:04

仅仅因为与后面平行的原因选E吗？完全没有必要阿

上面其他的解释都不是致命的错误吧……

不理解

作者: AlienX 时间: 2008-10-12 08:02
proposal/propose後用不決定的語氣...
D的restrictions, which include only three such pollutants不太make sense...restrictions不會include pollutants....

作者: AlienX 时间: 2008-10-12 08:13
E沒有run-on
"句子1 and 句子2"在prep上有
OG10中有一題說"句子1 and 句子2"是一個run-on的結構是因為"句子2"的主語跟"句子1"的主語一樣, 可是沒有被omitted.

作者: yzhao26 时间: 2009-2-23 03:34
up

作者: yzhao26 时间: 2009-2-23 10:17
up

作者: xiaoniuren 时间: 2009-4-18 21:13

ding

作者: skigorush 时间: 2009-7-27 19:24

作者: jupiter410 时间: 2009-10-2 15:14
up

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