ChaseDream

标题: [求助]大全235 [打印本页]

作者: dreadpower 时间: 2004-1-31 14:46
标题: [求助]大全235
235.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

   OG的解释：In choices A, C, and E, in attributing ... behavior modifies the perpetrators, producing the illogical statement that the perpetrators rather than the defense attorneys are attributing behavior to food allergies.

   答案是B，关于A为何错，OG认为perpetrator不能attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy

   我的看法是：法庭上经常有perpetrator为自己辩护，把自己罪行归咎于一些因素来为自己开脱罪名的。

   当然，律师也会为perpetrator辩护的，所以律师可以做attributing的逻辑主语，但是我认为perpetrator也可以做attributing的逻辑主语。

   请大家指点

作者: terry_awesome 时间: 2004-1-31 15:38
注意后面是 perpetrator are (in effect) told....是被动！

作者: dreadpower 时间: 2004-1-31 17:49

以下是引用terry_awesome在2004-1-31 15:38:00的发言：
注意后面是 perpetrator are (in effect) told....是被动！

被动和perpetrator做逻辑主语有关系吗？？不是很理解你的意思，可否详细解释？

作者: tianwan 时间: 2004-1-31 20:39
1.A, 'some food allergy' is wrong. It should be 'some food allergies'.

作者: tianwan 时间: 2004-1-31 20:40
2.可能美国只能由律师来辩护吧。

作者: dreadpower 时间: 2004-2-1 12:18
呵呵，谢谢tianwan的解答

作者: halcyon 时间: 2004-2-1 13:36

以下是引用terry_awesome在2004-1-31 15:38:00的发言：
注意后面是 perpetrator are (in effect) told....是被动！

agree

而且前半句已经说明Defense attorneys have occasionally argued ，
干嘛还要perpetrator 呀，逻辑上不通吧。

作者: yalemba2007 时间: 2006-9-26 11:38
OG里不是一贯强调 if x happens, then y would happen.. 那B里怎么没有would 啊? 汗...

作者: JJUUHHUU 时间: 2009-10-4 15:41
谁能把这句话给翻译一下么？

作者: JJUUHHUU 时间: 2009-10-4 15:53
辩护律师常常声称他们被辩护人的行为不当是由于吃了某些东西的反应，把犯罪归结于食物的变态反应，所以犯罪人不应该为他们的行为负责？

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