标题: OG 141 题目有误，限定从句 [打印本页] 作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-11-23 10:59 标题: OG 141 题目有误，限定从句 141. Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same, all patients receiving hearts or other organs must take antirejection drugs for the rest of their lives. Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same Besides transplants involving identical twins with the same genetic endowment Unless the transplant involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment Aside from a transplant between identical twins with the same genetic endowment Other than transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same In A and B, the phrases beginning Unlike... and Besides... modify patients, the subject of the main clause; thus A absurdly states that Unlike transplants ..., patients... must take ... drugs, and B that all patients except for transplants... must take ... drugs. In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical. In E, the construction Other than transplants..., all patients ... must take... drugs illogically suggests, as in B, that some patients are transplants. Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a clause introduced by Unless to describe the exception to the rule and a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.
ＯＧ的解释：In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical. 是说ＷＩＴＨ是特指，可用ＷＨＯＳＥ从句，是用泛指，是吗？
作者: gemj 时间: 2003-11-24 00:31
好象不是特指与泛指的区别吧？ 我的理解是，介词短语与从句修饰的意思不一样： twins with the same genetic endowment 翻成汉语的意思是：具有相同基因构成的同卵双胞胎。 言外之意是还有“不具有相同基因构成的同卵双胞胎。”
而 involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment 的意思是：涉及同卵双胞胎，而（同卵双胞胎）具有相同基因构成。 也就是定语从句是对其修饰对象的解释，而非限定。 或者说定语从句是与其修饰对象可以划等号，而介词短语却不可以。 作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-11-24 12:33
以下是引用gemj在2003-11-24 0:31:00的发言：
或者说定语从句是与其修饰对象可以划等号，而介词短语却不可以。
gemj,这个能讲讲吗？我一直不明白定语从句与介词短语在修饰上有什么区别啊？谢谢。作者: gemj 时间: 2003-11-24 15:20
这是我上面说的区别啊。作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-11-26 12:11
是这样啊，我明白了。谢谢GEMJ。作者: christinahong 时间: 2003-12-6 23:53
D.Aside from 引导的短语与所修饰对象是否必须要比较对等，它的中文意思是什么？ 请教牛牛！作者: gemj 时间: 2003-12-7 00:05
在这里的中文意思是“除了”的意思， 似乎不需要与所修饰对象必须要比较对等： Apart from also aside from American English 1 except for We didn't see anyone all day, apart from a couple of kids on the beach. Apart from the ending, it's a really good film. see usage note except 1 2 as well as Apart from his earnings as a football coach, he also owns and runs a chain of sports shops. Quite apart from the cost, we need to think about how much time the job will take.作者: Snazzy 时间: 2003-12-7 02:05
i think choice C is right simply becasue there r 2 different subjects in this sentence: transplants and all patients作者: gmatchenaimin 时间: 2003-12-7 15:06
其实是限定性修饰 和 非限定性修饰的区别 所谓限定性修饰, 有定语从句, 分词短语, 介词短语等, 特证是和被修饰的对象紧连没有逗号隔开. 功能是限定被修饰对象 如: identical twins with the same genetic endowment: 具有相同基因特性的双胞胎
非限定性修饰, 有同位语从句, 非限定性定语从句, 名词短语等, 特佂是一定有逗号隔开, 功能是对被修饰对象起说明解释作用, 可以去掉非限定性修饰而不影响要表达的主要意思. 如上面的例子:Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same: 与双胞胎之间的器官移植不同, (他们具有相同的基因特征), ......
所以有泛指和特指之说
作者: atasl 时间: 2003-12-11 17:22
对这道题我不解的就在于此。ets明明说C中：“a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.” 可在C中的“who have..." 之前根本没逗号，没逗号能叫”nonrestrictive clause”吗？是不是印刷错误？作者: bluestone1 时间: 2003-12-19 02:49
同样的疑问。 ETS 真糙蛋，怎么说都行。
另我总结： 句首 用 except for ; aside from; 和一些介词短语如 on the basis of 引导的名词不需要与主句主语对等； 而 Besides; other than; like; unlike 则必须对等
以下是引用atasl在2003-12-11 17:22:00的发言： 对这道题我不解的就在于此。ets明明说C中：“a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.” 可在C中的“who have..." 之前根本没逗号，没逗号能叫”nonrestrictive clause”吗？是不是印刷错误？
234.The physical structure of the human eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters; infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye.
(A) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye
(B) however, the wavelength of infrared radiation—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye making it invisible
(C) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long for the eye to register it
(D) however, because the wavelength of infrared radiation is 0.1 millimeters, it is too long for the eye to register and thus invisible
(E) however, infrared radiation has a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long for the eye to register, thus making it invisible
Choice A, the best answer, is clear, idiomatic, and grammatically correct. In B, the misplaced participial phrase making it invisible modifies eye rather than wavelength, thus producing a confusing statement that distorts the meaning. In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing. Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation. Choice E produces an illogical statement by using a restrictive clause introduced by that where a comma followed by the nonrestrictive “which” is required: a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long nonsensically suggests that not all wavelengths of 0.1 millimeters are too long for the eye to register.
作者: LES 时间: 2004-4-2 15:05 标题: [求助]ETS对限制性定语从句与非限制性定语从句的定义
141.Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same, all patients receiving hearts or other organs must take antirejection drugs for the rest of their lives.
(A) Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
(B) Besides transplants involving identical twins with the same genetic endowment
(C) Unless the transplant involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment
(D) Aside from a transplant between identical twins with the same genetic endowment
(E) Other than transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
以下是引用atasl在2003-12-11 17:22:00的发言： 对这道题我不解的就在于此。ets明明说C中：“a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.” 可在C中的“who have..." 之前根本没逗号，没逗号能叫”nonrestrictive clause”吗？是不是印刷错误？
234.The physical structure of the human eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters; infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye. (A) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye (B) however, the wavelength of infrared radiation—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye making it invisible (C) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long for the eye to register it (D) however, because the wavelength of infrared radiation is 0.1 millimeters, it is too long for the eye to register and thus invisible (E) however, infrared radiation has a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long for the eye to register, thus making it invisible
Choice A, the best answer, is clear, idiomatic, and grammatically correct. In B, the misplaced participial phrase making it invisible modifies eye rather than wavelength, thus producing a confusing statement that distorts the meaning. In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing. Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation. Choice E produces an illogical statement by using a restrictive clause introduced by that where a comma followed by the nonrestrictive “which” is required: a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long nonsensically suggests that not all wavelengths of 0.1 millimeters are too long for the eye to register.
以下是引用atasl在2003-12-11 17:22:00的发言： 对这道题我不解的就在于此。ets明明说C中：“a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.” 可在C中的“who have..." 之前根本没逗号，没逗号能叫”nonrestrictive clause”吗？是不是印刷错误？
我确认是印刷错误！作者: LES 时间: 2004-4-29 15:12
Typo, confirmed by ETS!
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
WOW, WOW, WOW, I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE IT. GOOD LES MM.
作者: egretxm 时间: 2004-5-22 00:16
照着楼上的说法非限定修饰一定有逗号隔开, 可是C中 Unless the transplant involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment 这个who.... 从意义上说是非限定, OG的解释也说是非限定, 但又没有逗号啊?
I told them I am a Chinese girl living in Shanghai.作者: rt316 时间: 2004-6-17 23:31
以下是引用LES在2004-4-29 15:12:00的发言：
Typo, confirmed by ETS!
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
多谢，小老乡。作者: 泰格尔 时间: 2004-7-25 15:10
看到这个贴让人精神为之一振！困惑也一扫而光！
LES， GMAT这封回信值得保留哟！
作者: 流沙 时间: 2004-8-18 17:46
好帖子！！！作者: toynbee 时间: 2004-8-18 23:04
哇...我们CD的人都太强了,N啊!作者: lxy128 时间: 2004-8-20 16:05
请问E的错误是逻辑主语的错误吗？ OG上的解释：In E, the construction Other than transplants..., all patients ... must take... drugs illogically suggests, as in B, that some patients are transplants. 看不懂？请NN指点。作者: LES 时间: 2004-8-21 23:36
other than 连接的比较对象要对称。作者: bloodcherry 时间: 2004-8-23 23:13
太强了，拜服作者: byebyelove 时间: 2004-10-1 17:08
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
太强了，令吾等信心大增！！ 誓将ETS睬到底！！
作者: wendywheel 时间: 2004-11-27 07:25
Awesome LES! Thank you so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
作者: fbfamous 时间: 2004-11-30 22:41
以下是引用LES在2004-4-29 15:12:00的发言：
Typo, confirmed by ETS!
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
Typo, confirmed by ETS! Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
BTW, may i have your name? are you a student??
would you like to work for us--ETS??
[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-11 12:45:04编辑过]
作者: liuyang1984 时间: 2006-9-22 11:49
对，像这样的信应该让所有的cder 们都看到，太鼓励我们了
作者: amy7777 时间: 2006-10-4 10:11
234. The physical structure of the human eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters; infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye.
(A) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye
(B) however, the wavelength of infrared radiation—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye making it invisible
(C) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long for the eye to register it
(D) however, because the wavelength of infrared radiation is 0.1 millimeters, it is too long for the eye to register and thus invisible
(E) however, infrared radiation has a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long for the eye to register, thus making it invisible Choice A, the best answer, is clear, idiomatic, and grammatically correct. In B, the misplaced participial phrase making it invisible modifies eye rather than wavelength, thus producing a confusing statement that distorts the meaning. In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing. Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation. Choice E produces an illogical statement by using a restrictive clause introduced by that where a comma followed by the nonrestrictive “which” is required: a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long nonsensically suggests that not all wavelengths of 0.1 millimeters are too long for the eye to register.
用that引导从句，限定性，说明不是所有的波长0。1的都太长不能被眼睛register，
因此，Unless the transplant involves identical twins ， who have the same genetic endowment who前面的逗号是必然的，表示非限定性，因为所有的同卵双胞胎都有个相同的基因天资，没有例外，所以不能用限定性，只能用非限定性，如果没有逗号的话那么就是限定性的了，就说明还有一些其它的同卵双胞胎不是有同样的基因天资了。
以下是引用gmatchenaimin在2003-12-7 15:06:00的发言： 其实是限定性修饰 和 非限定性修饰的区别 所谓限定性修饰, 有定语从句, 分词短语, 介词短语等, 特证是和被修饰的对象紧连没有逗号隔开. 功能是限定被修饰对象 如: identical twins with the same genetic endowment: 具有相同基因特性的双胞胎
非限定性修饰, 有同位语从句, 非限定性定语从句, 名词短语等, 特佂是一定有逗号隔开, 功能是对被修饰对象起说明解释作用, 可以去掉非限定性修饰而不影响要表达的主要意思. 如上面的例子:Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same: 与双胞胎之间的器官移植不同, (他们具有相同的基因特征), ......
所以有泛指和特指之说
特别感谢gmatchenaimin的发言！
让我从此彻底明白限定性和非限定性修饰成分的用法
作者: vivian_huang 时间: 2007-8-19 10:29
以下是引用LES在2004-4-29 15:12:00的发言：
Typo, confirmed by ETS!
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
翻到第二页才看到这个，N,真N!!!!!
为所有锲而不舍，生命不息，专研不息的Cders喝彩！！！大家都该看看！！！
作者: nuj_am 时间: 2007-8-29 22:36
以下是引用LES在2004-4-29 15:12:00的发言：
Typo, confirmed by ETS!
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
以下是引用gemj在2003-11-24 0:31:00的发言： 好象不是特指与泛指的区别吧？ 我的理解是，介词短语与从句修饰的意思不一样： twins with the same genetic endowment 翻成汉语的意思是：具有相同基因构成的同卵双胞胎。 言外之意是还有“不具有相同基因构成的同卵双胞胎。”
而 involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment 的意思是：涉及同卵双胞胎，而（同卵双胞胎）具有相同基因构成。 也就是定语从句是对其修饰对象的解释，而非限定。 或者说定语从句是与其修饰对象可以划等号，而介词短语却不可以。
顶！牛人讲解就是清晰。
作者: Mayanist 时间: 2009-2-2 01:00
以下是引用gmatchenaimin在2003-12-7 15:06:00的发言： 其实是限定性修饰 和 非限定性修饰的区别 所谓限定性修饰, 有定语从句, 分词短语, 介词短语等, 特证是和被修饰的对象紧连没有逗号隔开. 功能是限定被修饰对象 如: identical twins with the same genetic endowment: 具有相同基因特性的双胞胎
非限定性修饰, 有同位语从句, 非限定性定语从句, 名词短语等, 特佂是一定有逗号隔开, 功能是对被修饰对象起说明解释作用, 可以去掉非限定性修饰而不影响要表达的主要意思. 如上面的例子:Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same: 与双胞胎之间的器官移植不同, (他们具有相同的基因特征), ......
所以有泛指和特指之说
牛人层出不穷！
作者: Mayanist 时间: 2009-2-2 01:01
以下是引用atasl在2003-12-11 17:22:00的发言： 对这道题我不解的就在于此。ets明明说C中：“a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.” 可在C中的“who have..." 之前根本没逗号，没逗号能叫”nonrestrictive clause”吗？是不是印刷错误？
如上面的例子:Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same: 与双胞胎之间的器官移植不同, (他们具有相同的基因特征), ......
141.
Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same, all patients receiving hearts or other organs must take antirejection drugs for the rest of their lives.
a.Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
b.Besides transplants involving identical twins with the same genetic endowment
c.Unless the transplant involves identical twins，who have the same genetic endowment
d.Aside from a transplant between identical twins with the same genetic endowment
e.Other than transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
ABDE介词平行问题: Besides, apart from , other than A, B......., A 和B 必须逻辑平行
_Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a clause introduced by Unless to describe the exception to the rule and a nonrestrictive clause beginning with “，who” to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.
最开始的时候ETS少打印了一个“，”，没有逗号就是限定性！
_In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical.
234. The physical structure of the human eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters; infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye.
(A) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye
(B) however, the wavelength of infrared radiation—0.1 millimeters—is too long to be registered by the eye making it invisible
(C) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength—0.1 millimeters—is too long for the eye to register it
(D) however, because the wavelength of infrared radiation is 0.1 millimeters, it is too long for the eye to register and thus invisible
(E) however, infrared radiation has a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long for the eye to register, thus making it invisible
Choice A, the best answer, is clear, idiomatic, and grammatically correct. In B, the misplaced participial phrase making it invisible modifies eye rather than wavelength, thus producing a confusing statement that distorts the meaning. In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing. Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation. Choice E produces an illogical statement by using a restrictive clause introduced by that where a comma followed by the nonrestrictive “which” is （就是“，which”）required: a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long nonsensically suggests that not all wavelengths of 0.1 millimeters are too long for the eye to register.
Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.
My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is entirely justified: there is a printing error in question 141, option C. Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question for future editions of the Guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
。
