标题: GWD7-Q4争议题与OG T13比较！！旧题新问！！ [打印本页] 作者: 思兼 时间: 2010-10-18 23:40 标题: GWD7-Q4争议题与OG T13比较！！旧题新问！！ RT，题目如下： GWD7-Q4: Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—less than those killed by bee stings.
A. movies—less than those B. movies—fewer than have been C. movies, which is less than those D. movies, a number lower than the people E. movies, fewer than the ones
OG 12th T13 A surge in new home sales and a drop in weekly unemployment claims suggest that the economy might not be as weak as some analysts previously thought. A claims suggest that the economy might not be as weak as some analysts previously thought . C claims suggest that the economy might not be as weak as have been previously thought by some analysts.
答案分别是B 和 A 对于OG的答案我没有疑问，问题是对于OG那题的C选项，OG的评价是 the sentence offers no plural subject to fit the passive verb “have been thought." 那是不是假如把economy换为economies或者直接把have改为has，C就有可能成立呢？？如果是的话，那么是不是说C选项中的have been前面的省略没有错呢？？还是说OG对于C选项的评述本身就是在说have been前面就缺一个plural subject，不能省略呢？
正如各位所见，gwd的B选项与OG的A选项是如此的相似——have been前面的东西都被省略了，而gwd的是对的，OG的却认为是错的。如果可以证明OG那题的C选项的错处仅在于have been 的单复数上的话，相信能更有力证明gwd那道争议题B答案的有效性！！
希望各位xdjm踊跃发言~~~Thx~~~作者: 思兼 时间: 2010-10-19 16:38
自己顶顶！！作者: angelcity 时间: 2011-6-14 10:12
LZ,你的推论"OG的评价是 the sentence offers no plural subject to fit the passive verb “have been thought." 那是不是假如把economy换为economies或者直接把have改为has，C就有可能成立呢？？如果是的话，那么是不是说C选项中的have been前面的省略没有错呢？？"的假设前提有误. 因为首先OG对错误选项的解释是不完整的，也就是不穷尽的，OG只解释了主要的错误。基于这个前提，所以你说的如果把have改成has后,就能推出C项成立的说法是不合理的。作者: beebee94 时间: 2011-8-15 18:42
顶一下~~刚好对这两题有疑问，疑惑的地方跟LZ一样！有NN可以解答一下吗？？作者: sysyman 时间: 2012-11-14 20:01
OG的那个C选项说as weak as have been previously thought by some analysts.