ChaseDream

标题: OG 128 [打印本页]

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-11-23 10:43
标题: OG 128
128. New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.
requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties
requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation
requirements for application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties
application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties
irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties
Choice E, the best answer, clearly and grammatically expresses the idea that two costly procedures, irrigation and the application of... fertilizer, were required by earlier high-yielding varieties of rice. In A, the placement of by earlier... varieties immediately after application of fertilizer suggests that the varieties applied the fertilizer. In B and D, the phrase application of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations. In C, only irrigation--not both irrigation and fertilization--is clearly associated with the earlier... varieties of rice.

D, the phrase application of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations。

这题是考跳跃修饰。可是我觉得D也是修饰明确啊。为什么OG的解释是什么意思？ was 的主语是application，application有两样东西：一是commercial fertilizer ，二是irrigation。这就说得蛮清楚的啊？

谢谢。

作者: bigcamel 时间: 2003-11-23 22:56
答案d中从句中用was,使得从句在语法上可能只修饰irragation，而非原意中要修饰的application, 造成歧义。

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-11-26 12:16

以下是引用bigcamel在2003-11-23 22:56:00的发言：
答案d中从句中用was,使得从句在语法上可能只修饰irragation，而非原意中要修饰的application, 造成歧义。

A of B,后面的动作可说明A也可说明B，这题中WAS用来说明application，不行吗？谢谢。

作者: bigcamel 时间: 2003-11-26 12:35
这里的was即可以被理解为修饰application,又可以理解为修饰irragation,造成歧义，所以不好

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-11-26 14:53

以下是引用bigcamel在2003-11-26 12:35:00的发言：
这里的was即可以被理解为修饰application,又可以理解为修饰irragation,造成歧义，所以不好

天啊，是因为这个原因吗？这一题我一直没明白。拖到现在，成了老大难了。

作者: crusaders 时间: 2003-12-25 02:32
首先佩服joywzy JJ的认真态度
刚才在论坛里搜到了 Joywzy JJ早在四月分的发贴询问 128的情况
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&replyID=11510&ID=2284&skin=1
再加上这个帖子上 GGJJ们的讨论
我想说说自己对这道题的看法

还是先从OG的解释下手
D, the phrase application of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations。

在读了GGJJ门辛苦的总结和分析后才感觉到（如果有错误希望GGJJ指点）
Ambiguous一词就可选出B.D.E中的最优了
B(Ambiguous)
requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation
...V of A of C and I
可以解释为 A 和 I 并列既申请和灌溉并列就是OG说的两个过程
也可以解释为 of 后面的 C 和 I 并列共同做定语短语修饰 A 只有一个申请,一个过程.申请中又有C和I两个部分.
这也就是 OG 说的:
it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations.

D(Ambiguous) 在A of C and I that was...中
that 可以指代A,同时在没有语法错误的情况下也可以指代I,因为着两个都是单数名词.
这样也产生了一个过程或者两个过程的 Ambiguous.

E(Cear) I and A of C that were ....
因为I and A of C本身不存在歧义 I和A并列,所以由were可明确的看出that指代的是 I and A.

若有错误希望GGJJ 指出错误thx..

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-12-25 2:34:19编辑过]

作者: cmtn 时间: 2004-4-28 13:46

In answer E

Why "I and A of C that were" = "I and (A of C) that were" but not "(I and A) of C that were"

作者: cmtn 时间: 2004-4-28 13:46

In answer E

Why "I and A of C that were" = "I and (A of C) that were" but not "(I and A) of C that were"

作者: cocoabean 时间: 2004-4-30 06:54

since OG says it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations ,

we know it should be I and (A of Cf)

If it is the type of " (I and A) of C that ", that will refer to CF, was should be used in here, because CF is single noun.

that指代CF,若指代I and A 意思不通.不大清楚, 在OG里, that一般是两者都可以指代的吗? 有优先级吗?一般指代C的情况是不是多一些?请指教!

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-4-30 8:37:37编辑过]

作者: 心晴 时间: 2004-6-7 08:41

以下是引用cmtn在2004-4-28 13:46:00的发言：

In answer E

Why "I and A of C that were" = "I and (A of C) that were" but not "(I and A) of C that were"

我也觉得有你说的这样的问题，但是不从语法，从意思上讲，I of C意思不通啊。请哪位NN再解释详细一点？

作者: babypace 时间: 2004-6-7 11:32

我觉得这题从意思上去理解：商业化肥的应用和灌溉，所以只有E是合适的。我也选了D，但是og解释我觉得经典，D里面的容易歧义。如果application是主语，后面用was，那这么解释：A）商业化肥和灌溉的应用，还是B）商业化肥的应用，和灌溉？所以有歧义的。如果是A解释，那用was,如果是B解释，那就要用were了。

大家认为呢？

作者: echochen 时间: 2004-6-22 13:40
问个问题,that引导限制性定语从句,要求紧跟先行词,在E选项中"application of commercial fertilizer"按语法要求,that 不是应该修饰commercial fertilzer,咋么修饰了"irrigation and application",在 a and b of c结构中是否没有该要求.

作者: caterpillar 时间: 2004-6-23 09:30
irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties
定语从句中的谓语were决定了它是修饰前面的irrigation and application, 如果仅修饰application就应该用单数了。

作者: irenelj78 时间: 2004-7-30 11:34

以下是引用joywzy在2003-11-26 12:16:00的发言：

A of B,后面的动作可说明A也可说明B，这题中WAS用来说明application，不行吗？谢谢。

当然可以，但是就是因为“也可以“ 所以原句会造成歧义，所以不能选啊。

而且og解释说得很清楚：D, the phrase application of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations。

这句话也可以理解成application of fertilizer与irrigation(后面有that定于从句修饰）并列
也可以理解为就是你所说的那样application是由fertilizer and irrigation这两个组成的 a single operation ，所以说D答案 cannot be clearly determined 。。。。

我是这样理解的

作者: valarie 时间: 2004-8-3 03:49

When I was doing this question, I felt "costly requirements xxxx" very uncomfortable, so I immediately eliminated A, B, C. And then since both application of xxx + irrigation were BOTH required by the earlier high-yielding varieties, I immediately eliminated D because the right answer gotta to contain the verb "were". I didn't even bother to think of whether it's (I+A) of C or I+ (AofC)

I don't know if I did it by luck or this is the right way.

作者: Tiangel 时间: 2004-8-3 15:34

to valarie：靠感觉去做题是平时的一种积累，也是一种很好的方法，但这里的costly是形容词：（比较正式）昂贵的，损失严重的，所以如果仅凭costly requirements 就删掉答案有些运气在里面。

而你认为“And then since both application of xxx + irrigation were BOTH required by the earlier high-yielding varieties, I immediately eliminated D because the right answer gotta to contain the verb "were”。我觉得意思上的理解是一个不错的方法。

作者: Tiangel 时间: 2004-8-6 13:15

仔细又看了一下这道题感觉E也有歧异“1 灌溉与商用化肥的应用were

2商务化肥的灌溉与应用 were

谢谢NN指教

作者: Tiangel 时间: 2004-8-7 22:49

up~

谢谢！

作者: agk99 时间: 2004-8-9 02:41

我有一個很阿Q的想法

或許是 a and b of c是老外的慣用法吧

請指教

作者: Tiangel 时间: 2004-8-10 14:39

以下是引用Tiangel在2004-8-6 13:15:00的发言：

仔细又看了一下这道题感觉E也有歧异“1 灌溉与商用化肥的应用were

2商务化肥的灌溉与应用 were

谢谢NN指教

有请NN！谢谢～

作者: windflower560 时间: 2005-1-22 16:11

to Tiangel:我觉得从意思上理解应该是1说的通,说2商务化肥的灌溉和应用可能会有些牵强吧。

to caterpillar: 您解释的时候是把解释建立在已经知道E正确的情况下去解释的，那如果不知道，反而were会被我们当成一个排除E的理由。

作者: 小女公子 时间: 2005-4-13 21:14

128. New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

(A) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties

(B) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation

(C) requirements for application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties

(D) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties

(E) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties

清晰：Requirement of N and n2 by…by修饰n2 这里的by是可能修饰n2 or N+n2，还是说by从语法上就铁定修饰n2了？

作者: 薰衣紫草 时间: 2005-4-14 12:54
搜索一下以前的帖子吧. 讨论太多了.

作者: titatita 时间: 2006-1-26 09:54

以下是引用Tiangel在2004-8-6 13:15:00的发言：

仔细又看了一下这道题感觉E也有歧异“1 灌溉与商用化肥的应用were

2商务化肥的灌溉与应用 were

谢谢NN指教

2商务化肥的灌溉与应用 were

逻辑不同:化肥不能灌溉呀

作者: titatita 时间: 2006-1-26 10:01

以下是引用小女公子在2005-4-13 21:14:00的发言：

128. New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

(A) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties

(B) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation

(C) requirements for application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties

(D) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties

(E) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties

清晰：Requirement of N and n2 by…by修饰n2 这里的by是可能修饰n2 or N+n2，还是说by从语法上就铁定修饰n2了？

n1 and n2 by语法上by修饰n2但逻辑上应该修饰n1 and n2

作者: riverquiet 时间: 2007-6-12 00:36

以下是引用crusaders在2003-12-25 2:32:00的发言：
首先佩服joywzy JJ的认真态度
刚才在论坛里搜到了 Joywzy JJ早在四月分的发贴询问 128的情况
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&replyID=11510&ID=2284&skin=1
再加上这个帖子上 GGJJ们的讨论
我想说说自己对这道题的看法

还是先从OG的解释下手
D, the phrase application of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations。

在读了GGJJ门辛苦的总结和分析后才感觉到（如果有错误希望GGJJ指点）
Ambiguous一词就可选出B.D.E中的最优了
B(Ambiguous)
requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation
...V of A of C and I
可以解释为 A 和 I 并列既申请和灌溉并列就是OG说的两个过程
也可以解释为 of 后面的 C 和 I 并列共同做定语短语修饰 A 只有一个申请,一个过程.申请中又有C和I两个部分.
这也就是 OG 说的:
it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations.

D(Ambiguous) 在A of C and I that was...中
that 可以指代A,同时在没有语法错误的情况下也可以指代I,因为着两个都是单数名词.
这样也产生了一个过程或者两个过程的 Ambiguous.

E(Cear) I and A of C that were ....
因为I and A of C本身不存在歧义 I和A并列,所以由were可明确的看出that指代的是 I and A.

若有错误希望GGJJ 指出错误thx..

agree

作者: noss 时间: 2007-6-12 01:13

我觉得：irrigation 本身就有施肥的意思，如果加application or reqiurment就wordy了，可能这个也是一个

考虑选e而不是d的原因吧

作者: dormousedzc 时间: 2007-11-13 17:45

同意,就是为了避免歧义

作者: dormousedzc 时间: 2007-11-13 17:51
对了,requirments for这个搭配对不对阿,OG只说requirments of x by y是错的,没说requirments for是否正确.

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-11-13 17:52:21编辑过]

作者: lulu_odin 时间: 2008-5-8 12:24

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