在看到下题的OG解释时，突然想起jerryguan上面说的这句话（被highlight的部分），不知道和下面OG解释的是否有冲突？
The Baldrick Manufacturing Company has for several years followed a policy aimed at decreasing operating costs and improving the efficiency of its distribution system.
(A) aimed at decreasing operating costs and improving
(B) aimed at the decreasing of operating costs and to improve
(C) aiming at the decreasing of operating costs and improving
(D) the aim of which is the decreasing of operating costs and improving（A）
(E) with the aim to decrease operating costs and to improve
The best choice, A, offers an adjective phrase (aimed at 是形容词短语，不是动词过去分词) unequivocally modifying policy and exhibiting grammatical parallelism (decreasing... and improving). In choice B, the gerund the decreasing is not grammatically parallel with the infinitive to improve. Likewise, in C and D, the decreasing of... costs is not parallel with improving the efficiency. In E, the infinitives to decrease and to improve, while parallel, are less idiomatic than the prepositional phrase of decreasing... and improving in modifying the noun aim. Also, with the aim... improve can easily be construed as referring to the Baldrick Manufacturing Company and so does not refer unequivocally to policy.
各位，以下是为什么选C而非A的一家之言：
A中with no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting和c中 and did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting 的逻辑主语都是it, 也就是offer, 但a不平行，因为promote 本身有名词形式，promotion, 因此and 连接的不是两个并列形式，不如c好。c有一些罗嗦，但对称完美。
为什么with短语的逻辑主语是it,见以下例子：
The minister received the bad news with great patience.
She cooperate with her team members with great dedication.
也就是说with短语的逻辑主语应该与with短语之前紧接的句子的主语保持一致
JerryGuan的观点确实需要商榷的说
分清a与c最简单的方法，就是a选项中with no commitment to m h and e p可能修饰主句中的fill,也可能修饰前面紧邻的名词action，
修饰主句中的fill时，说fill的时候没有做出相应承诺
修饰前面紧邻的名词action时，说fill了一个没有相应承诺的affirmative action quota
两种解释似乎都行得通，而句子的本意却只有一个，所以这种表达引起歧义，不能选这样的答案。
而c就没有这个毛病。
分清a与c最简单的方法，就是a选项中with no commitment to m h and e p可能修饰主句中的fill,也可能修饰前面紧邻的名词action，
修饰主句中的fill时，说fill的时候没有做出相应承诺
修饰前面紧邻的名词action时，说fill了一个没有相应承诺的affirmative action quota
两种解释似乎都行得通，而句子的本意却只有一个，所以这种表达引起歧义，不能选这样的答案。
而c就没有这个毛病。
我同意
还有我认为AB中的promoting应该是动名词，为名词性质，所以应该是eventual而不是adv形式
紫色部分说的我不是那么能接受, OG56C就是一个反例. without前面没有逗号, 做状语修饰整个句子.
我觉得这题发散出来的考点值得研究, 大家都在AC上面的with结构上面讨论, 其实要我选AB相较, B的伴随取消了with歧义, 比A更好, 我会在BC之间选. 我觉得排除的关键是动词"reflect".
看一个OG的题目可能就理解了:
214. Although the term "psychopath" is popularly applied to an especially brutal criminal, in psychology it is someone who is apparently incapable of feeling compassion or the pangs of conscience.
(A) it is someone who is
(B) it is a person
(C) they are people who are
(D) it refers to someone who is
(E) it is in reference to people
In choices A and B, the pronoun it simultaneously refers forward to someone (or a person) and backward to the term "psychopath" As a result, the sentence asserts illogically that the term is actually a kind of person rather than a word referring to a kind of person. Choice C repeats this fault and adds an error in agreement: they (plural) does not agree in number with the term (singular). E omits a main verb, such as applied, that, in grammatical context here, is required after is. Also, the word people incorrectly shifts number from singular to plural. In choice D, the best answer, the verb refers is correctly used after it, and the alignment of pronouns and antecedents is both logical and grammatical.
OG说的明确, 主要动词是不可省略的, 推广一步, 下次再看到这种两个选项差在一个"实意"动词的时候, 应该小心了.
紫色部分说的我不是那么能接受, OG56C就是一个反例. without前面没有逗号, 做状语修饰整个句子.
我觉得这题发散出来的考点值得研究, 大家都在AC上面的with结构上面讨论, 其实要我选AB相较, B的伴随取消了with歧义, 比A更好, 我会在BC之间选. 我觉得排除的关键是动词"reflect".
看一个OG的题目可能就理解了:
214. Although the term "psychopath" is popularly applied to an especially brutal criminal, in psychology it is someone who is apparently incapable of feeling compassion or the pangs of conscience.
(A) it is someone who is
(B) it is a person
(C) they are people who are
(D) it refers to someone who is
(E) it is in reference to people
In choices A and B, the pronoun it simultaneously refers forward to someone (or a person) and backward to the term "psychopath" As a result, the sentence asserts illogically that the term is actually a kind of person rather than a word referring to a kind of person. Choice C repeats this fault and adds an error in agreement: they (plural) does not agree in number with the term (singular). E omits a main verb, such as applied, that, in grammatical context here, is required after is. Also, the word people incorrectly shifts number from singular to plural. In choice D, the best answer, the verb refers is correctly used after it, and the alignment of pronouns and antecedents is both logical and grammatical.
OG说的明确, 主要动词是不可省略的, 推广一步, 下次再看到这种两个选项差在一个"实意"动词的时候, 应该小心了.
是啊，你说的很好
但是因为A项是原句，没有reflect,一般不敢随便加减动词，所以在A上我犹豫了半天
呼唤NN，怎样区别C和D阿？
我觉得C的Reflecting修饰Offer
呼唤NN，怎样区别C和D阿？
我觉得C的Reflecting修饰Offer
就像2楼所说，D中的not reflecting 的逻辑主语应该是主句主语，所以逻辑上有歧异，不好。
分词做状语的修饰对象一般不是通过逻辑判断出来的，而是遵循至少下列规则。
（然后用逻辑判断检验根据下列规则代入后的结果是否合乎逻辑）
1。主句的主语应该是分词动作的发起者（逻辑主语）
2。分词前的整个句子造成了分词的动作发生。一般这个时候分词部分作结果状语（或目的状语）
---〉 如：I got 200 points at GMAT test , leading to myselft losing face.
-----
C选项就比较清楚了。GMAT中平行一般都是由内层扩展到外层来判断，先判断这里的reflect 和...to fill ...是平行吗？当然不，不定式的平行不是这个样子嘛！再往外层扩展是和...was meant ...平行吗？一看时态上都是一般过去没问题，心里一喜，再一看逻辑上也说得过去，于是大悦！恩。。。应该就是它了。
分词的修饰一般有三种情况，一是做定语修饰本句的主语（og39），这种用法相对少见。二是做状语，表示伴随动作。另外一种也是做状语表示伴随结果。后两种相对常见。做状语的时候是修饰整个句子或者主语。
具体到这道题明显是分词短语做状语修饰attorney或者整个句子。但是实际上我们需要的是一个可以和because句的宾语从句中与it was……平行的动作。所以d不对。
不知道讲清楚没有
allen没看懂啊？提问？讲解？
我做这道题的时候也是错了选a。
我总结一下大家的意见吧。
A：to minority hiring and eventually promoting，可以看出hiring、promoting是动名词，用eventually修饰promoting不合适。
B：同上
D：白勇语法上提过：ing分词短语在句尾，1）伴随状语、状态、功能，与句子谓语动作同时发生，逻辑主语等于句子主语。2）表伴随结果，整个句子是原因，导致分词动作发生，无逻辑主语。
在这里应该表伴随动作，逻辑主语是attoney，所以d错
E：awkward
我做这道题的时候也是错了选a。
我总结一下大家的意见吧。
A：to minority hiring and eventually promoting，可以看出hiring、promoting是动名词，用eventually修饰promoting不合适。
B：同上
D：白勇语法上提过：ing分词短语在句尾，1）伴随状语、状态、功能，与句子谓语动作同时发生，逻辑主语等于句子主语。2）表伴随结果，整个句子是原因，导致分词动作发生，无逻辑主语。
在这里应该表伴随动作，逻辑主语是attoney，所以d错
我觉得这里的D的reflecting应该是有歧义吧,有可能修饰quota也有可能修饰it.这里并不需要伴随的状态，而是需要一个平行的动作。平行和伴随还是有区别的吧？？
E：awkward
希望讨论~~
请教一下with独立分词结构的用法:
(A)…, with ….
(B)…with
是不是说没有加逗号(B), 就有可能造成修饰主语或是前一个之嫌, 而有逗号(A)就只能修饰前一个呢?
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |