ChaseDream

标题: 0g-12 74 [打印本页]

作者: ediewang 时间: 2009-9-16 00:06
标题: 0g-12 74

刚才还发错版面了~

74. A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump

(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping

(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump

(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

答案是D，可是我就是觉得是A。既然是reduce，肯定是reduce之前的量，而reduce本身已经使用了过去时，而be allowed是在reduced之前发生的，那么为什么要选择D呢？？A选项又表达了时间又表示了内容！

Verb form; Idiom

An agreement that occurred in 1972 is correctly described with the past tense verb reduced. Since the dumping continued after the date of the agreement, the past perfect verb had been allowed should instead be the present are allowed (if the agreement remained in effect when the sentence was written) or the past were allowed (if the agreement was no longer in effect when the sentence was written). Since were allowed does not appear in any of the options, we can assume that the correct verb tense is are allowed. The phrase amount of phosphates is clear and idiomatically correct, whereas phosphate amount is not idiomatic.

A Had been allowed should be are allowed.

B Th e phosphate amount should be the amount of phosphates; the omission of some form of allow is incorrect since the agreement
changed not the amount dumped, but the
amount permitted to be dumped.

C Present tense reduces should be the past tense reduced; the phosphate amount should be the
amount of phosphates; have been allowed should be are allowed.

D Correct. Th e past tense reduced is correctly used in this sentence to describe a past action, and the present tense are allowed is used to describe the present situation.

E Present tense reduces should be the past tense reduced; allowed for dumping is an incorrect idiom; allowed for dumping by municipalities

is awkward.

作者: maggie0406 时间: 2009-9-16 01:29

我觉得你说的有道理

请求NN解答~

作者: ediewang 时间: 2009-9-16 23:21

up~~

求助og-12

作者: ediewang 时间: 2009-9-17 23:48

呼唤牛牛~~

作者: yumengxi 时间: 2009-9-19 06:41
我觉得that 后面的部分有可能仅仅是修饰 phosphates, 而不是amount.

所以解释里说, dump phosphates这件事并不是只停留在之前,现在依然在继续,所以.....

that后面的时态是和这个行为发生的时间有关,而与reduce的那个amount的时间没什么关系.

我很困,可能是在胡说八道.不知道我的意思大家能不能理解....

作者: neomatrix 时间: 2009-9-19 13:32
仔细思考觉得OG的说法是对的。既然这个agreement是在1972年签订的，那么在1972年之前municipalities往great lakes里面dump的phosphate是已经发生的，这个agreement是没有办法reduce已经dump的amount的，而A里面恰恰表示的是reduce在agreement达成之前的amount，所以有逻辑意义上的错误。

我发现OG 12里面有好几道题目和逻辑意义都有关。

至于5楼的意见我不同意，从句意和语法的角度来说，that都是指amount of phosphate，而不是单指phosphate.

作者: jiyiflora 时间: 2009-9-19 13:55
小试一下，我也正在突击语法中。这道题我本来也做错了，看答案似乎理解是这个意思。

在一个规则或是法则里面的规定，我们用一般现在时。比如说，这个法案规定了，法案规定了某个规则，是对规则进行一个陈述，只要是没有显示这个规则已经是过去了的，无效了的。

而reduce呢，是要用过去时，这件事情已经做完了。

句意：加美间的1972年通过的协议减少了磷酸盐量，这个盐量是指各洲市被允许倒入北美洲五大湖的。

作者: yanshuini 时间: 2009-9-19 14:40
说法规和公理，都用一般现在时是这样的吗？

作者: jiyiflora 时间: 2009-9-19 15:37
是指沿用至今的规则，如果一个已经废弃了的，那就是过去状态了

作者: ediewang 时间: 2009-9-20 13:48

以下是引用jiyiflora在2009/9/19 13:55:00的发言：
小试一下，我也正在突击语法中。这道题我本来也做错了，看答案似乎理解是这个意思。

在一个规则或是法则里面的规定，我们用一般现在时。比如说，这个法案规定了，法案规定了某个规则，是对规则进行一个陈述，只要是没有显示这个规则已经是过去了的，无效了的。

而reduce呢，是要用过去时，这件事情已经做完了。

句意：加美间的1972年通过的协议减少了磷酸盐量，这个盐量是指各洲市被允许倒入北美洲五大湖的。

那不应该是减少之前允许的量么？
我也觉得og-12很多题强调了一些逻辑的内容

作者: gracezz 时间: 2009-9-26 23:40

白勇语法里有这个题,解释的是A.....

原因是主句是reduced从句用 are allowed时态不协调.....

其实A可以这样理解:1972年的这个agreement减少了至１９７２年为止．．．．(had been allowed to)....被允许dump into the great lakes...

但OG是官方啊.....

作者: 泡泡鱼虫 时间: 2012-5-21 21:12

仔细思考觉得OG的说法是对的。既然这个agreement是在1972年签订的，那么在1972年之前municipalities往great lakes里面dump的phosphate是已经发生的，这个agreement是没有办法reduce已经dump的amount的，而A里面恰恰表示的是reduce在agreement达成之前的amount，所以有逻辑意义上的错误。

我发现OG 12里面有好几道题目和逻辑意义都有关。

至于5楼的意见我不同意，从句意和语法的角度来说，that都是指amount of phosphate，而不是单指phosphate.

-- by 会员 neomatrix (2009/9/19 13:32:00)

同意~~~明白啦

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