我想，经过对不同知识点的讨论，这些老帖子就更丰满了。Mindfree大大跟Snazzy哥哥的分析真是精采啊!!!!佩服!!!
请注意选项中的主语变化
B中是 the power of Both A and B, 主语是 the power,因此用 has
其它是直接 A and B做主语，用have
我想问，既然说D和E中their有歧异：指代lines或者chips不明确，
那正确答案B中的they大家又怎么判断是清晰指代chips的呢？理论上不是也可以lines、chips、circuits甚至是lines+circuits（因为这两样东西加起来才是完整的主语）呢？
谢谢大家一起讨论下！
up!
麻烦大家讨论一下！
我想问，既然说D和E中their有歧异：指代lines或者chips不明确，
那正确答案B中的they大家又怎么判断是清晰指代chips的呢？理论上不是也可以lines、chips、circuits甚至是lines+circuits（因为这两样东西加起来才是完整的主语）呢？
谢谢大家一起讨论下！
那我也来说说吧，此题结构简单，as.....状从, 主句。因为前面的their在as 时间状语从句中有两个复数名词，所以这个their，就会有指代不清的错误。而后面的they，是主句中，就只能指代chips，没有指代不清的错误。其他的问题，各位XDJM 说的清楚，我就不赘述了。
非常好的补充，加深了我对A的理解！谢谢！
我想问，既然说D和E中their有歧异：指代lines或者chips不明确，
那正确答案B中的they大家又怎么判断是清晰指代chips的呢？理论上不是也可以lines、chips、circuits甚至是lines+circuits（因为这两样东西加起来才是完整的主语）呢？
谢谢大家一起讨论下！
139. As the etched lines on computer memory chips have become thinner and the chips’ circuits more complex, both the power of the chips and the electronic devices they drive have vastly increased.
(A) the chips’ circuits more complex, both the power of the chips and the electronic devices they drive have
(B) the chips’ circuits more complex, the power of both the chips and the electronic devices they drive has
(C) the chips’ circuits are more complex, both the power of the chips and the electronic devices they drive has
(D) their circuits are more complex, the power of both the chips and the electronic devices they drive have
(E) their circuits more complex, both the power of the chips and the electronic devices they drive have
請問答案為何是b
你只要看主句 the power [of both the chips and the electronic devices (that) they drive] has vastly increased. 就不会觉得they 指代不清了，主句中代词不会指代从句中的成分的。
这一题就是考平行结构 + logical predication + 主谓一致。楼上都分析的很好了：
平行结构决定排除CDE: have become thinner and (have become) more complex
逻辑上只有power做主语才行，否则如楼上所说 the power of ... and the number of devices 平行结构做主语
因为选项中只提供了 the power 做主语，所以谓动用 has，选B
感谢两位的大力支持！但是我这人比较笨，还是没有深刻理解你们的意思。
这是正确的B选项：
As the etched lines on computer memory chips have become thinner and the chips’ circuits more complex, the power of both the chips and the electronic devices they drive has vastly increased.
我认为，本题中chips不管在从句中或是主句中就没有做过独立的名词中心语：
as从句：从句主语由两个中心语并列组成，它们是lines and circuits。chips是作为定语的身份出现。
主句：主语的中心语是power，它有两个并列的修饰语：chips and devices。chips同样是作为定语，而且还不是独立的定语，而是并列定语中的一个。
在判断they的指代时，我先找主句可以指代的名词：
由于主句主语power是单数形式，排除；其修饰语chips and devices从逻辑上判断是they drive这个从句的宾语，是they drive的对象，也排除。至此，主句中已经没有可以指代的名词。
于是，我开始找从句，并认为they指lines and circuits是从语法上（根据以上排除法）逻辑上都说得通的。
现在我不明白的是，为什么大家排除they指代lines and circuits这个直接出现在名词中心语位置上的可能，而选择chips这个至始至终都没能做过独立中心语的名词作为they的指代对象呢？
难道是因为主句里的代词不能指代从句里的名词？据我所知，至少主句主语位置的代词可以指代从句的名词：
OG11-111 As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(A) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(B) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind as an adult.
(C) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500; qualifying it to be legally blind if an adult.
(D) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.（D）考点：代词指代。主句主语位置的代词等于句首状语的主语。A错。B中or是连词，不管连接的是that分句的内容还是主句的内容逻辑主语（分句主语或主句主语）都不对。C的分号后是一个fragment。E中which状语的指代对象错误。
(E) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision, which would be deemed legally blind for an adult, would be rated about 20/500.
这是OG10和OG11的解释差不多：In choice A, it, the subject of the main clause, seems to refer to baby, the subject of the subordinate clause; thus, A seems to state that the newborn baby, rather than its sense of vision, would be rated 20/500.
那么，为什么大家排除they指代lines and circuits这个直接出现在名词中心语位置上的可能，而选择chips这个至始至终都没能做过独立中心语的名词作为they的指代对象呢？
请大家再帮忙指导一下。
代词指代顺序：主句主语>主句宾语>从句主语>从句宾语。
这题看了好几遍发现我第一次做的时候理解错了，lcy19812000好赞的问题。they drive的宾语就单单是electronic devices,并不包括chips，否则逻辑不合理：chips不用带动自身，而是在自身运行的时候会drive带动其他电子设备的运行. 所以they就指代跟electronic devices并列的chips.
语法上代词无法跨分句指代吧，lines和circuits是位于不同子句(As从句下的两个并列子句)的.
很荣幸得到版主的指导。
因为我不大懂电路，所以做题时压根就不认为chips能drive devices，看来是我在常识上的误解造成逻辑上的偏差。
但是我还是刨根问底的再抛出两个问题吧，大家讨论，共同进步。
1、版主说：“语法上代词无法跨分句指代吧，lines和circuits是位于不同子句(As从句下的两个并列子句)的.”那16楼我贴出的OG11－111我觉得是代词跨越分句指代啊，而且是主句代词指代分句名词，是不是我又逻辑理解错误了？
2、版主说：“they drive的宾语就单单是electronic devices,并不包括chips，否则逻辑不合理：chips不用带动自身，而是在自身运行的时候会drive带动其他电子设备的运行. 所以they就指代跟electronic devices并列的chips.”我仔细体会，一方面同意这样的逻辑是可行的，另一方面，我又战战兢兢的回忆起OG11－109这道题：
OG11－109 Published in Harlem, the owner and editor of the Messenger were two young journalists, Chandler Owen j and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader.
(A) Published in Harlem, the owner and editor of the Messenger were two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader.
(B) Published in Harlem, two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, were the owner and editor of the Messenger.
(C)Published in Harlem, the Messenger was owned and edited by two young journalists, A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, and Chandler Owen.
(D) The Messenger was owned and edited by two young journalists. Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, and published in Harlem.
(E) The owner and editor being two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, the Messenger was published in Harlem.
本题选C，即使his表示了who从句只能修饰一个人而不是同时修饰两个人，OG还是解释说A，B的who从句修饰对象是有歧异的。
所以我在翻阅了前辈们的讨论后，得出的结论是X and Y that...中，that强制指代X and Y；如果不想指代X and Y的整体，必须变换为X that...，and Y（Y that...，X）的结构。如果这条成立，本题中chips就没有被they指代的可能了。如果不成立，那OG11－109A，B中who从句修饰对象不清的玄机又在哪儿呢？
请问这两个OG中考过的问题怎么和大全139的中they指代chips结合起来呢？
我想这回我是明白了，they不能把不同分句里的词联合起来指代。
但是关于OG11－109，我是觉得ETS有点太无理取闹了，就算逻辑上X and Y that is...从句可以指代X或Y，被指代几率是各50％，但从语法就近修饰的原则看也非指代Y不可啊。
最讽刺的是，OG11－109的OG解释第一句是：A modifying phrase must be placed near the word it modifies.当然它指的是A选项中另外的问题，并且是说phrase。但是ETS也在整本OG里提到多次从句就近原则的问题以及with phrase跳跃修饰的问题，自己打自己嘴巴。呵呵，有些无所适从的感觉。
不过，抱怨没用，我们还是慢慢体会，慢慢学着ETS的思考方式吧。
再次非常感谢版主。我想，经过对不同知识点的讨论，这些老帖子就更丰满了。
一定一定。
大全我才做到100多题，OG做完了，好像绝大多数X and Y，which的结构都是指代X and Y。
今后复习中，这个问题我一定留心一下，争取能对ETS的理解有所突破，呵呵。
问一个傻点的问题。。
为什么As the etched lines on computer memory chips have become thinner and the chips’ circuits more complex
画线部分没有are才正确呢
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |