ChaseDream

标题: 【请教】GWD-Q32: PP61 [打印本页]

作者: hduszj 时间: 2009-7-11 17:45
标题: 【请教】GWD-Q32: PP61

Q32: PP61.
A D ？？？（逻辑主语问题）

Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each.

A. imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend

B. imposing stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients, and spending

C. that impose stricter limits on medical services, require doctors to see more patients, and spend

D. that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending（此处spending的逻辑主语应为doctors，而此句的结构使其逻辑主语成为insurance plans???）

E. that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spending

请各位大虾指教！！！谢谢！！！

作者: edogawaconan 时间: 2009-7-18 22:10

请各位大虾指教！！！谢谢！！！

作者: sophiaruan 时间: 2009-7-19 00:07

个人观点：这道题的答案应该是D，A中spend没有对应，B中看似对应很工整，但是spending的逻辑主语不对，这里是plan了，而实际应该是要求医生看更多病人这件事使得每个医生看病人的时间减少了，C和A的毛病一样。D表达正确了，plan有两个特征，一是强加苛刻条件，二是要求医生看更多的病人，后面那个导致了医生花更少的时间在每个病人上。E中requiring和impose不平行。

作者: pwss 时间: 2009-8-4 13:21

作者: sunzhaoyang 时间: 2009-10-24 13:27
不对我觉得这道选A，imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients是修饰Plan的，and spend 和are likely对应，请问这样解释行不

作者: dengyichao 时间: 2009-10-24 16:15

以下是引用sunzhaoyang在2009/10/24 13:27:00的发言：
不对我觉得这道选A，imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients是修饰Plan的，and spend 和are likely对应，请问这样解释行不

我觉得不能这样解释

spend less time with each的意思是，医生在每个病人身上花的时间少了，那么看的病人也就多了，同意D

impose stricter limits on medical services和require doctors to see more patients是并列关系，spend less time with each可以做伴随，如果加上to与to see more patients并列起来也可以理解。

作者: mars_cheung 时间: 2009-11-3 22:14
这里 spending 做伴随状语表示结果，如果变成和 to see more patients 并列，变成了被要求花更少的时间，逻辑表达上不如原句。

当分词做伴随状语时，可以不存在逻辑主语。所以LZ关于逻辑主语的顾虑不存在

作者: dreamroad 时间: 2009-11-26 22:39

这里 spending 做伴随状语表示结果，如果变成和 to see more patients 并列，变成了被要求花更少的时间，逻辑表达上不如原句。

当分词做伴随状语时，可以不存在逻辑主语。所以LZ关于逻辑主语的顾虑不存在

-- by 会员 mars_cheung (2009/11/3 22:14:12)

"当分词作伴随状语时，可以不存在逻辑主语"？赐教

能举例吗？突然觉得这题有点越看越不懂了

作者: echo0709 时间: 2009-11-26 23:19
我认为应该是A GWD 给的答案有问题 A is more likely to do than b 这是句子的主干 insurance 定语从句 imposing on and requring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each other.

open to disscuss.

作者: dreamroad 时间: 2009-11-27 11:41
我也觉得D中那个spending的逻辑主语变成plans了，就不是doctors了

希望还有朋友能够给出解释哦，或者对于这题的语法点

作者: true 时间: 2010-3-3 21:03
如果A选项改成如下，可否？
A. imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients and to spend

作者: JayNicholas 时间: 2010-3-3 23:07
SPENDING分词做状语就近修饰DOCTOR

作者: zpfwww 时间: 2010-9-22 04:34
如果A选项改成如下，可否？
A. imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients and to spend

窃以为，改成这样也不可。因为spend less time 是客观造成的结果，see more patients 是保险公司主观要求。
试着体会这个句子：今年要早点启动火车春运今年火车票要早点涨价。铁路局可以说早点春运，但是要求早点涨价就要被骂了。

作者: 小羽羽 时间: 2010-10-19 11:48

-- by 会员 mars_cheung (2009/11/3 22:14:12)

同意
个人觉得require和spend肯定是并列的，毋庸置疑，他们的逻辑主语不可能是plan，所以当然也不能和impose并列，这就排除了ABCD

作者: 冰宝宝 时间: 2013-10-25 20:41
3年了，还有人来看嘛？？？spending可以没有逻辑主语吗？我觉得E中的requiring and spending可不可以做前面imposing的伴随呢？

作者: bby33 时间: 2014-6-21 21:10
今天也做到了····果断的错了···虽然答案是D，可是最后spending的伴随实在无法说服我

作者: angla 时间: 2014-7-18 15:57
首先排除AB，plan的修饰，用that定语从句更好，因为后面的所有都是plan的内容。
再找并列关系的树形结构。 impose和require并列修饰plans。see和spend修饰doctor
C中把impose，require，spend放到统一水平并列，肯定错。
E吧require和spend放同一水平，也错。

剩下D，spending可以看作是see more patients的一种结果。因为see more patient 和spend less time with each说的是同一件事，只不过更深层次地进行了阐述。如果用see more patient and spend less time的话反而不好，表示这是并列的两件事。

作者: dakxt1 时间: 2014-8-2 11:27
同错；赞同楼上；下面是我事后想想的做法，基本和楼上一样；但是还是不理解spending；管他的。。。

我的事后做法：
先排除AB，因为imposing没有用that好，毕竟动作发起者可能引起怀疑；其次在CDE中选择；根据并列，C三个动作的并列，但是由于语意，spend不是plan发出的，去掉；
D不知道，但是前面两个动作发出的是一样的是plan，没有问题，留着；
E requiring 和spending 并列了，动作变成了但是这两个动作的发起者不是plans，去掉，剩下D
当然，考试的时候能否这么做出来还是个问题。。。

作者: 猪猪Suny 时间: 2015-11-25 18:56
转自曼哈顿的解释
RonPurewal
ManhattanGMAT Staff:you have to realize which verbs are supposed to be parallel and which aren't. there's no grammatical formula for this; you have to examine the meaning of the sentence to figure it out.
- 'impose' (in whatever form) should be parallel to 'require' (again, in whatever form). these are two different things, both of which are aspects of the plan (= logical parallelism).
- 'spend' should not be parallel to 'see', because it functions as a modifier of 'see' (it's a descriptive adverb modifier, detailing the way in which the doctors see the patients).

choice a: 'spend' is ungrammatical here (it has no logical subject, and isn't parallel to anything).
choice b: imposing, requiring, and spending are all parallel, implying that the insurance plans do all three of these things (an absurdity in the last case).
choice c: all three verbs are parallel again, leading to the same absurdity witnessed in choice b.
choice d (= correct): the parallelism follows the model outlined above: only the verbs that are logically parallel appear in parallel structure.
choice e: 'requiring' and 'spending' are parallel in the modifier, implying that the plans themselves spend time with patients (in addition to requiring blah blah blah). this doesn't make sense.

作者: 猪猪Suny 时间: 2015-11-25 19:01
in choice d, you could legitimately make a case that 'spending' could modify the entire huge clause about what insurance plans do, and is therefore ambiguous. however, that's the OA, so you've learned that this problem is ok in the eyes of the gmat people. if there's a rule that can be articulated here, it's probably something along the lines of 'participial modifier applies to nearest action'.

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