ChaseDream

标题: intent of doing Vs intent to do，gwd注释和Prep1.0给出了相反的答案？ [打印本页]

作者: bispham 时间: 2010-10-2 20:15
标题: intent of doing Vs intent to do，gwd注释和Prep1.0给出了相反的答案？
GWD25-Q20 答案是C，Jinni版注释对E的解释只说了正确用法是with the intent to do
?Most states impose limitations on the authority of the legislature to borrow money, with their objectives being to protect taxpayers and the credit of the state government.

A.to borrow money, with their objectives being to protect
B.to borrow money, the objectives of which are the protecting of
C.to borrow money, limitations intended to protect
D.for borrowing money, of which the objective is protecting
E.for borrowing money, limitations with the intent of protecting

PREP 69正确答案是C,证明即使上述GWD答案没错，那么至少也是intent of doing/to do两者皆可。而prep1.0对该题的注释中提到:“要注意不要将with the sole intent to sell误认为是to do结构表示目的. to do结构修饰的是动词,如果修饰名词的话应该用A of B结构.with the sole intent没有动词出现,所以应该用of selling来修饰名词intent”

69. (28225-!-item-!-188;#058&003542)

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of

high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the

Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000

in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

(A) passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek

up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows

companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the

sole intent that they will sell

companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the

sole intent of selling

(D) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows

companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the

sole intent to sell

(E) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to

seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of

selling

作者: bispham 时间: 2010-10-3 00:23
纠结了一下，感觉gwd答案是对的，但排除E项的理由是错的，应该是E的for doing表目的的用法使用不当，所以排除，to do更还的修饰了authority。for doing作为典型错误的着手点可以参见prep中很多道题。
with intent of肯定是正确的，毕竟有破解的prep正确项支持；with intent to do暂时不好下定论，gwd那道题的正确项是sth intented to do,回避了这个问题，而prep那道题中包含with intent to do的选项有其他错误点，不能说明问题，希望有NN能帮忙举例证明intent to do是否是正确用法

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