130. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized（A）
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
Answer: A
their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
THEIR should refer to countries not tribes (As I understand), but why here it refers to later one?
OR we do not take care of it as long as it is not underlied?
It seems that ETS tolerate more than one antecedent of a pronoun when the semantic antecedent can be clearly refered. When it comes to this subject, "their" refers to "Indians".
However, ETS deems it wrong that two same pronouns in one single sentence refer two different antecedent.
ETS always, ALWAYS right.
Thank you tianwan.
their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
THEIR should refer to countries not tribes (As I understand), but why here it refers to later one?
为什么?我认为这里their 指代three tribes？？？
to three tribes of Oneida Indians 和for the unlawful seizure of....都是修饰restitution的，而主语是two upstate New York counties
such as:
Hostages owed restitution to Japan for their release. 这里的their 指 hostages，而不会指japan.
不知这样解释恰当否
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |