ChaseDream

标题: [求助]885-sec5-21 居然从来没人错么？ [打印本页]

作者: dogholiday 时间: 2008-9-27 08:18
标题: [求助]885-sec5-21 居然从来没人错么？

21. Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy

(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food

(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior (B)

(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior

请问大家，in attributing的用法有什么问题？D、E很容易被排除，attribute与cause语义重复，那么A和C是怎么排除的？谢谢！

另外，an allergy to some food与some food allergy有问题吗？还是相同的？

非常感谢！

作者: shaketiger 时间: 2008-9-27 11:38
in attributing的话，这个部分的逻辑主语就是the perpetrators ，但实际的逻辑主语应该是 Defense attorneys 。不知道这样解释能不能理解。

作者: dogholiday 时间: 2008-9-27 22:06

讲的很有道理，超级感谢~~~

我先前确实没想到逻辑主语的问题，还在网上狂查是不是in attributing的用法不存在。

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