ChaseDream
标题: [求助]新prep2，210 [打印本页]
作者: china101 时间: 2009-6-4 21:49
标题: [求助]新prep2，210
210. (29708-!-item-!-188;#058&004436) (GWD-12-Q31)
Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.
A. Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering
B. Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ended shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber
C. Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and that ends shortly before Emily’s death in 1886 and outnumbering
D. Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother, ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, and outnumbering
E. Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber
给说说A哪错了。。。outnumbering分句表主句结果，不行么？我觉得逻辑上也说的通啊。。。
作者: AlienX 时间: 2009-6-5 03:28
有人說邏輯上"outnumbering..."不能是"Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written"隨伴(結果)
作者: china101 时间: 2009-6-5 17:13
那也只能这么理解了。。。看来版主也不认为有别的毛病了。。。。
作者: onedayling 时间: 2009-9-24 01:00
我也有同样的问题~顶！
作者: 北拳猪猪 时间: 2009-10-15 20:45
我选了A
因为觉得E的话，觉得应该是outnumbered
作者: shouhen 时间: 2009-10-15 21:17
个人观点，gmac越来越注重语法当中的逻辑了，我觉得如果选e的话这句句子的重点在后面半句，就是letters outnumber letters.不过话说回来我第一次看到这题的话也肯定选a,逗号后面which一般就近修饰的，在这句中有歧义……
作者: doyoga 时间: 2009-11-9 20:19
大家不觉得那个E的which不对吗？
which不是只能修饰它之前的名词吗？
虽然我知道之前是个人，which不能修饰人
但是难道就因为这样所以which可以跳跃修饰？
作者: cynthia627 时间: 2009-11-18 22:10
哦，原来这道题这么多人都选了A……我真是不明白了，GMAT这些语法点的用法怎么这么没原则。OG里面那么多都是一看which不跟着修饰词，就给派出了……这道题……我真是看着E更好，真是不敢选。就是觉得which不对……
作者: dogshead 时间: 2009-12-14 16:21
NND，越来越考逻辑了，A只强调了信在哪个时间段写，没有强调写了多少。所以outnumbering无法构成主句结果，因为主句里面没有提到写了多少多少信。如果主句提到这个阶段写写多少信，A肯定对了。
作者: sunsetchen 时间: 2009-12-14 22:18
大家不觉得那个E的which不对吗？
which不是只能修饰它之前的名词吗？
虽然我知道之前是个人，which不能修饰人
但是难道就因为这样所以which可以跳跃修饰？
-- by 会员 doyoga (2009/11/9 20:19:34)
eg.He broke the expensive vase,which made her mother very angry.
在这里是他打碎了花瓶使她妈妈非常生气，而不是花瓶让他妈妈生气。
作者: leleshirley 时间: 2009-12-15 15:05
LS的，在GMAT语法中，which是不可以指代前面整句话的～
同意doyoga理解的跳跃修饰
PS:prep216的which就是跳跃修饰到了hearings,所以跳跃修饰在没有歧义且指代明确的前提下是可行的～
作者: ctkstarcraft 时间: 2009-12-15 16:22
210. (29708-!-item-!-188;#058&004436) (GWD-12-Q31)
Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington
Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.
A. Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering
B. Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ended shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber
C. Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and that ends shortly before Emily’s death in 1886 and outnumbering
D. Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother, ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, and outnumbering
E. Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber
给说说A哪错了。。。outnumbering分句表主句结果，不行么？我觉得逻辑上也说的通啊。。。
-- by 会员 china101 (2009/6/4 21:49:00)
对于A, 从语法上讲，outnumbering在此做状语，具体来说是做结果状语，而结果状语表明主句的行为或状态所导致的结果。
主句是个被动形式，意思是“信被写“，显然，“信的数量更多“不是“信被写“的结果。
另外which引导非限制性定语从句，紧跟被修饰名词是最清楚的表达方法，但在不引起歧义和混淆的时候，可以后置。而此题后置是因为有关系更紧密的介词结构"to Susan Huntington Dickinson"修饰letters, 所以从修饰词顺序和平衡句子重心的角度考虑，which理所当然要放后面（何况如果是修饰人的话，引导词要用who）
Emily Dickinson’s letters ，which were ...... , to Susan Huntington Dickinson, ........ 你一看就觉得是awkward.
综上，选E
作者: dengqin 时间: 2010-5-13 00:27
大家不觉得那个E的which不对吗？
which不是只能修饰它之前的名词吗？
虽然我知道之前是个人，which不能修饰人
但是难道就因为这样所以which可以跳跃修饰？
-- by 会员 doyoga (2009/11/9 20:19:34)
which 不是只能修饰名词的，在非限定性从句中which可用来修饰整个句子
eg.He broke the expensive vase,which made her mother very angry.
在这里是他打碎了花瓶使她妈妈非常生气，而不是花瓶让他妈妈生气。
-- by 会员 sunsetchen (2009/12/14 22:18:37)
小说一下，在口语中，which可以用来修饰整个句子，但是在GMAT语法中，which只能修饰名词。
作者: cenco 时间: 2010-5-13 09:08
11楼解释的非常合理且清晰。收益了。
作者: agnesliu 时间: 2010-7-31 22:02
我看着A觉得别扭，可是对E这个which的修饰问题很不解，还是选了A。
这跳跃修饰或者修饰不当要怎么评判啊~~~
作者: merrimack 时间: 2010-8-14 12:22
我也选的A，虽然看了大家的解释我大概理解了，不过考试如果遇见类似的题目我一定还是选错。。。
作者: zhouyeying 时间: 2010-8-23 03:05
看OG12 的44页的49题。。。对于a选项错误，解释是who指的是theater，不是那个人，反正我就觉得和这题很矛盾！！！！
作者: lxw19 时间: 2010-9-22 11:19
up 一道纠结的题 11楼讲得很清楚
作者: sun2046 时间: 2010-12-20 18:31
11楼讲的好！受益，强烈顶。。。
作者: stone_lc 时间: 2011-1-3 16:26
我选了A
因为觉得E的话，觉得应该是outnumbered
-- by 会员 北拳猪猪 (2009/10/15 20:45:00)
作者: cptiger 时间: 2011-3-27 18:22
我也选A错，E中动词时态我觉得用过去时态更好outnumbered
有没有人解释下为什么可用一般现在时？
作者: 付小猫 时间: 2011-4-19 01:20
我也选A错，E中动词时态我觉得用过去时态更好outnumbered
有没有人解释下为什么可用一般现在时？
-- by 会员 cptiger (2011/3/27 18:22:43)
同问！！~~~
作者: flewrudy 时间: 2011-4-26 10:59
转自http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post24246.html
this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are tw completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.
examples:
my brother, who ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduated in 1994. --> correct; his eating bagel bites had no impact on his graduation date.
my brother ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduating in 1994. --> incorrect; these are two unrelated observations, but this construction erroneously implies some sort of relationship.
他的例子举得非常好！！
作者: flewrudy 时间: 2011-4-26 11:01
我觉得如果用outnumber也没错，但是a是明显有问题的啊
作者: 纳纳太阳花 时间: 2012-5-11 09:39
我觉得是陈述客观事实，所以用一般现在时
作者: tr408283185 时间: 2012-12-9 20:21
11楼正解~~~~
作者: MILKLUVNYC 时间: 2013-3-20 16:18
关于E选项which指代的问题，manhattan论坛的ron大神是这么说的：
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/emily-dickinson-s-letters-to-susan-huntington-dickinson-were-t6529.html
occasionally, when it is completely unambiguous, "which" can refer to a whole NOUN PHRASE that immediately precedes the comma.
in this case, this noun phrase is "X's letters to Y". (note that this noun phrase, as a unit, does immediately precede the comma.)
also, note the complete lack of grammatical ambiguity: "which" can't refer to dickinson, who is a person, and it's also followed by a plural verb. both of these pieces of evidence point to the noun phrase "X's letters to Y".
--
here's the basic summary:
if you have "X of Y, which..."
then:
* if Y works as the antecedent of "which", then "which" should stand for Y.
* if Y doesn't work as the antecedent, but "X of Y" DOES work, then "which" can stand for "X of Y".
作者: zxppx 时间: 2013-5-9 17:20
china101 发表于 2009-6-4 21:49 
210. (29708-!-item-!-188;#058&004436) &nb ...
有看到说：当主句是被动语态的时候，doing修饰时不能作为“结果”
Ron认为，outnumber和were written over a period是两件独立的事情，两者之间没有关系 http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/emily-dickinson-s-letters-to-susan-huntington-dickinson-were-t6529.html
但是我觉得，不能说它们没关系，我可以描述“信在某个时间段被写完”，并且“这些信的数量超过了...”
OG上的解释是：前面出现了太多的时间状语，弄得outnumber不清楚到底是在修饰什么。
作者: ericeric77 时间: 2013-7-9 23:36
这个所谓逻辑解释太牵强，看了答案可以这么强行解释。
凭啥写信和outnumber没逻辑联系，不写那么多年咋出来那么多封信，怎么outnumber别的.
作者: shangjiongj 时间: 2013-7-18 19:11
同问为什么不是outnumbered
作者: sunnybabyeva 时间: 2013-9-5 10:58
According to Manhattan, yes, the use of "which" in E seems to be improper, and thus should be avoided ( page 232. It clearly points out that"Again, the relative pronoun Which must refer to the noun just before the Which.").
However, the noun phrases( not only the noun as mentioned above) that immediately precedes the coma is also acceptable, in this case, it's "ED's letters to SD ", and the pronoun "which" DID right follow this noun phrases behind the coma. So it's actually consistent with what we have found on "Manhattan".
plz see http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post24246.html
作者: 兰心寒 时间: 2013-11-7 16:23
我看了好久，好像还是没有人回答，是不是E选项的outnumber用过去时更好啊？这里为什么要用一般现在时啊？
作者: q2621109 时间: 2013-11-14 23:48
Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber ^, 请问各位牛牛，我咋看不懂开头Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson 是啥结构呢？ 求解答……………………………………………………
作者: oc16chan 时间: 2013-12-20 02:12
兰心寒 发表于 2013-11-7 16:23
我看了好久，好像还是没有人回答，是不是E选项的outnumber用过去时更好啊？这里为什么要用一般现在时啊？ ...
因为这个是客观事实，过去，现在，将来，那些给susan的信都会比她写给其他人的信多。。。。
雷龙的脖子10米长，is longer than地球上曾经出现过的任何脖子~~~比如长颈鹿。。。。
作者: oc16chan 时间: 2013-12-20 02:20
ericeric77 发表于 2013-7-9 23:36
这个所谓逻辑解释太牵强，看了答案可以这么强行解释。
凭啥写信和outnumber没逻辑联系，不写那么多年咋出 ...
是有逻辑关系的，但是这些给susan的信是被写的，这里用了被动语态，不能导致these letters主动outnumber后面那些东西~~~ 下面这个例子不懂能不能表达得更清楚点。
E.g.: a large amount of insecticide was used on these crops, making complete abscence of crop-eating bullworms.
首先，这个Making其实是人为喷洒农药的结果，农药被动地被喷不能make任何东西。如果把making换成leading: insecticide was used, leading to abscence of worms，意思就通顺了，前句的整个situaton 导致了后面，而不只是前句的主语。
如果没有要强调cause-effect，就只是说药可以杀虫，句子也可以改成a large amount of insecticide was used on these crops and it made complete abscence of bullworms.
这个是我的理解，错误请指教
作者: 兰心寒 时间: 2013-12-20 11:01
oc16chan 发表于 2013-12-20 02:12
因为这个是客观事实，过去，现在，将来，那些给susan的信都会比她写给其他人的信多。。。。
雷龙的脖子1 ...
哦，谢谢谢谢呢～
作者: yingtang 时间: 2014-8-9 13:01
跟被动没有关系呢 想太多要晕的
作者: yingtang 时间: 2014-8-9 13:20
问：Some people say that using a present participle phrase to express the result of the preceding clause is not allowed when the preceding clause is in a passive voice？
Ron： the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are two completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.
if a grammatical construction can be correct with an active-voice verb, it can also be correct with a passive-voice verb. there is no grammatical difference between the uses of active and passive verbs; the difference between active and passive is strictly an issue of meaning.
such sentences can quite easily be correct.
e.g.
john was thrown from the car, sustaining multiple injuries.
that's a correct sentence in which you have a comma -ing modifier modifying a passive-voice clause.
作者: yingtang 时间: 2014-8-9 13:26
oc16chan 发表于 2013-12-20 02:20
是有逻辑关系的，但是这些给susan的信是被写的，这里用了被动语态，不能导致these letters主动outnumber ...
these letters outnumber .....是完全站得住脚的主谓，你给的例子 this insecticide makes ....也是站的住脚的主谓。两个句子中outnumbering和making都apply to the subject and modify the preceding clause。
A的错误在于虽然写信的时期很长，但是并不一定导致Emily写给Susan的信比Emily写给其他所有人的都多。
作者: g0418 时间: 2015-10-31 04:08
可不可以这么理解，A中outnumbering的逻辑主语letters 在逻辑上是不能超过的，应该是letters 的数量超过给别人的数量，所以这个v-ing修饰有问题
作者: seeingyou 时间: 2015-12-8 18:34
插播一个问题:
看OG思路是一眼就能确定outnumber...而非written period是句子主旨，怎么做到的呢？
作者: 我要喝可乐 时间: 2015-12-20 11:42
说说我的想法，这个句子前半段讲的Emily给susan的信啥时候开始写，啥时候结束，后半句有个动词outnumber，就是数目超过的意思。
如果前半句是句子的重心，outnumbering就变成一个修饰成分。而分词作为修饰成分，是修饰前句句子的主语，与前面主句的关系要么是一种直接的结果，要么是一种次要的动作。而在这里，不符合任何一种形式。而且指代不明确。
相反，如果后面是句子中心，就是说letters outnumber 了，之前的修饰成分都是说letters具体是啥时候开始写的，啥时候结束的。
作者: seeingyou 时间: 2015-12-20 13:54
感谢，很清楚。
作者: 我要喝可乐 时间: 2015-12-21 04:53
不客气，我也在复习语法，互相学习！
作者: 钢琴123 时间: 2016-3-22 21:02
http://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/emily-dickinson-s-letters-to-susan-huntington-dickinson-were-t6529.html
作者: 於一 时间: 2016-5-9 10:25
A 主要是着重讲 这些信 写了多久从什么时候开始写的 后面的outnumber我觉得只是另外一个对信得修饰
E which 后面是对信得描述 逗号+outnumber是对主语的描述 着重讲 emily给susuan的信比给别人的多得多
作者: shine6609551 时间: 2016-11-20 19:22
v-ing
1.svo－作状语，可以表示伴随，与主语动作同时进行
可以表示因果，
2.主系表－修饰主语
本文中是svo，outnumber不能表示因果，也不能表示伴随，所以a 错了
作者: LeoZhang47 时间: 2017-2-26 00:40
当然可以跳跃修饰，which可以通过单复数跳跃修饰。而且只要没有语义上的错误，普通的名词修饰语也可以跳跃修饰
作者: danielsu 时间: 2017-6-8 12:54
同意！
作者: Apraura 时间: 2017-8-26 17:33
同意！
作者: Apraura 时间: 2017-8-26 17:54
同意！
作者: 西瓜美少女 时间: 2017-10-11 16:20
同意！
作者: 黄苏打 时间: 2017-10-14 16:08
同意！
作者: 酒肉臭 时间: 2017-11-24 16:28
关于A 选项的doing结构，doing除了修饰前面一整句话表示结果，不是还可以由句子主语发出这个动作么，在这里：
Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.表示信件发出的Outnumbering这个动作不可以么？
作者: spirits_123 时间: 2018-6-5 16:37
同意！
作者: 典座 时间: 2020-6-10 23:38
我也是因为which瞬间kill了E选项....
作者: JessicaHuB 时间: 2020-6-14 07:57
这个题的确是很纠结， 但是我今天看了唐瑭老师的视频之后真的启发很多。
首先是排除bcd 因为beginning 和 ending不平行, 那么就是AE 中选择
然后在看是用were written 还是which； 这句话中是ED‘s letter to SHD; 没有一个人作为这个动作的发起 - 即没有人发出写的这个动作
那么我们就只能用which - 来形容这个ed's letter (也刚好符合苛刻的which要求）- 即选e
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |