ChaseDream

标题: OG 12-7(已解决) [打印本页]
作者: abjure    时间: 2010-5-11 17:54
标题: OG 12-7(已解决)
7. As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has
become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

Agreement; Rhetorical construction
When a number of words intervene between a pronoun and its referent, an error such as the one
in this sentence is easy to make. Th e subject of the main clause is the singular noun company, so the
pronoun referring to the company must also be singular. Even if the company might be thought
of as referring to the members of a business, the singular verb (has become increasingly willing)
establishes that the noun is singular in this sentence.
A Plural pronoun they does not agree with singular the company.
B Plural pronouns they and their do not agree with the company.
C Previously repeats the idea of in the past; the passive-voice construction in this context is weak and ambiguous.
D Th e placement of in the past makes it unclear whether it is supposed to modify rivals or
would have conceded; if the latter, then it is redundant.
E Correct. In this concise sentence, the singular pronoun it agrees with the singular referent the company.

The correct answer is E.

其他选项答案明白，我对D/E 选项 in the past 的时间状语 到底修饰哪个对象， 也不明白为啥要把OG D选项解释in the past 修饰would have conceded 就是多余？
同类涉及时间状语还包括 例如OG 3A;OG 50C; OG70 B/E; 我个人总结时间副词紧放在所修饰动词后面。不知道这个理解是否正确，望NN解答。 谢谢。

其他相关该题其他考点讨论连接如下供大家一起学习：
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_SC/thread-403910-1-1.html?SearchText=OG%2012%207
作者: myungryong    时间: 2010-5-11 18:40
previously 和 in the past 语义上的重复 因此多余
作者: abjure    时间: 2010-5-11 22:20
谢谢LS 提醒， 还是看漏眼啦。
（1）如果D选项没有previously， 大家觉得D/E是否有区别吗？

（2）同类涉及时间状语在句中位置的题目还包括 例如OG 3A;OG 50C; OG70 B/E; 我个人总结时间副词紧放在所修饰动词后面。不知道这个理解是否正确？望NN解答。 谢谢。
作者: myungryong    时间: 2010-5-11 22:42
(1) D 即便没previously 也是错的
从The placement of in the past makes it unclear whether it is supposed to modify rivals or would have conceded
in the past 有歧义
作者: abjure    时间: 2010-5-12 21:22
谢谢LS。。。按照你的说法，时间状语不可以放在句末？因为时间状语（in the past）在句末，可能修饰谓语动词，也可能修饰宾语。。。。

关于同类涉及时间状语在句中位置的题目还包括 例如OG 3A;OG 50C; OG70 B/E; 我个人总结时间副词紧放在所修饰动词后面。不知道这个理解是否正确？望NN解答。 谢谢。
可否有童鞋忙帮给个链接关于时间状语在句中位置的链接学习下？

作者: abjure    时间: 2010-5-13 21:44
顶起，再问. 谢谢
作者: jtrchina    时间: 2010-5-14 16:20
如果D选项没有previously， 大家觉得D/E是否有区别吗？
有。in the past既可修饰conceded ，又可修饰rivals。
原则：修饰语应尽量靠近被修饰对象。
如：
I am writting this post to abjure for making clear the effective use of modifiers to do some help in 2010.
字面意思很好理解，然而单从语法上讲：
1.for making clear 既可修饰我的目的，也可以将abjure的目的，更严密的表述方法应该为：for making clear the effective use of modifiers,I am writting this post to abjure.
2.同理，to do some help也表目的，然而光从语法角度考虑可以向前修饰I、abjure、甚至是use 或modifiers，产生了一堆歧义。
3.最后的in 2010尤甚。几乎可以向前修饰任何一处，让人对于该时间修饰的正确放置颇感费解与莫名。
所以，修饰语应尽量靠近被修饰对象。不然句子一长其修饰的对象就变得模糊不清，模棱两可。

hope it helps!
作者: abjure    时间: 2010-5-14 20:12
呵呵，太感谢了！！!
作者: aary431    时间: 2010-5-15 23:28
如果D选项没有previously， 大家觉得D/E是否有区别吗？
有。in the past既可修饰conceded ，又可修饰rivals。
原则：修饰语应尽量靠近被修饰对象。
如：
I am writting this post to abjure for making clear the effective use of modifiers to do some help in 2010.
字面意思很好理解，然而单从语法上讲：
1.for making clear 既可修饰我的目的，也可以将abjure的目的，更严密的表述方法应该为：for making clear the effective use of modifiers,I am writting this post to abjure.
2.同理，to do some help也表目的，然而光从语法角度考虑可以向前修饰I、abjure、甚至是use 或modifiers，产生了一堆歧义。
3.最后的in 2010尤甚。几乎可以向前修饰任何一处，让人对于该时间修饰的正确放置颇感费解与莫名。
所以，修饰语应尽量靠近被修饰对象。不然句子一长其修饰的对象就变得模糊不清，模棱两可。

hope it helps!
-- by 会员 jtrchina (2010/5/14 16:20:17)

这位NN将得好具体哦、\(^o^)/
作者: cenco    时间: 2010-5-15 23:46
小子受教了！！！
作者: yoshimihoku    时间: 2010-5-28 17:48
同问这道题，但是非常抱歉我的问题很低级……

这到底我整一个没弄懂它的句子结构：

[状语忽略], the company has become willing to compete for the sales it would have conceded to rival

我觉得一点也不通啊！无法理解！！
有哪位前辈能给解释一下吗？
作者: jtrchina    时间: 2010-5-28 18:59
同问这道题，但是非常抱歉我的问题很低级……

这到底我整一个没弄懂它的句子结构：

[状语忽略], the company has become willing to compete for the sales it would have conceded to rival

我觉得一点也不通啊！无法理解！！
有哪位前辈能给解释一下吗？
-- by 会员 yoshimihoku (2010/5/28 17:48:07)



断句如下：
【the company】（has become ）<willing to compete for the sales> {which it would have conceded to rival}
【】主语
（）谓语
<>修饰
{}从句
红色表省略，which指代sales


would have虚拟语气


整句：
the company 变得愿意去争取那些原本拱手让给竞争对手的销售
作者: abjure    时间: 2010-5-28 21:31
同问这道题，但是非常抱歉我的问题很低级……

这到底我整一个没弄懂它的句子结构：

[状语忽略], the company has become willing to compete for the sales it would have conceded to rival

我觉得一点也不通啊！无法理解！！
有哪位前辈能给解释一下吗？
-- by 会员 yoshimihoku (2010/5/28 17:48:07)




断句如下：
【the company】（has become ）<willing to compete for the sales> {which it would have conceded to rival}
【】主语
（）谓语
<>修饰
{}从句
红色表省略，which指代sales


would have虚拟语气


整句：
the company 变得愿意去争取那些原本拱手让给竞争对手的销售
-- by 会员 jtrchina (2010/5/28 18:59:47)



汗，这道题，自己标题“已解决”，在做第四遍还是错（错的知识点不同）。
自己误认为OG考试关系代词不可以省略，这道题就可以！！！
OG就是博大精深！！！
JTR 兄，你是不是知道我要问这个问题，所以也就再一次提前解答证实了。
向你致敬！
作者: 07170004hjq    时间: 2010-5-29 11:07
我觉得把题弄明白就好了 没必要分析这么复杂吧
作者: yoshimihoku    时间: 2010-5-29 23:51
弱问一句，楼上说的“关系代词”，就是指which吗？
作者: abjure    时间: 2010-5-30 00:17
弱问一句，楼上说的“关系代词”，就是指which吗？
-- by 会员 yoshimihoku (2010/5/29 23:51:38)



是的
作者: lingz    时间: 2010-7-21 00:13
同问这道题，但是非常抱歉我的问题很低级……

这到底我整一个没弄懂它的句子结构：

[状语忽略], the company has become willing to compete for the sales it would have conceded to rival

我觉得一点也不通啊！无法理解！！
有哪位前辈能给解释一下吗？
-- by 会员 yoshimihoku (2010/5/28 17:48:07)




断句如下：
【the company】（has become ）<willing to compete for the sales> {which it would have conceded to rival}
【】主语
（）谓语
<>修饰
{}从句
红色表省略，which指代sales


would have虚拟语气


整句：
the company 变得愿意去争取那些原本拱手让给竞争对手的销售
-- by 会员 jtrchina (2010/5/28 18:59:47)



明白了，之前都不明白为什么it后面用have。。



欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3