Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been citedby a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.
A.Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast. B.Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted. C.Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.
D.A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000 United States presidential election. E.A new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast. 由于没找到满意的讨论帖原本想发帖提问呢，后来找到了Mahattan Staff的讲解，非常好，有GMAC的风范，贴出来以方便跟我有同样疑惑的人查看：（忍受下，因为是英文的，就当看OG解释一样了） Quote:
a.) Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United Stated presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.
the "which" is suboptimal here, because it may also be taken to modify the election itself. i'm not sure, though, whether the gmat would label it as outright wrong. by far the most grievous error in this choice is "they", which doesn't refer to anything. it's also among the easiest things to spot, too; basically, you should keep a close eye on ANY pronoun that you see in a sentence.
Quote: b.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at pollingplaces, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted.
correct answer. the initial subject-less modifier modifies the immediately following noun (a new study), as required. there are no pronoun problems.
Quote: c.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.
the initial modifier doesn't have a subject, so it is attributed to the immediately following noun. unfortunately, in this case the immediately following noun is "4m to 6m of the ... votes", which makes no sense. the placement of "cast" vis-à-vis "in the election" also doesn't make sense here; those two are dissociated from each other. the wording of the sentence seems to imply that the votes were simply "cast" - not in this or that election, but just "cast" - and that they simply "weren't counted in the 2000 election". the literal interpretation is that the votes may still have counted in some other election.
analogy: many of the drinks at the party were not consumed --> nobody drank them, ever. many of the drinks were not consumed at the party --> they may have been consumed later. same problem.
Quote: d.) A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000 United States presidential election.
the biggest problem is the relative placement of "cast" vis-à-vis "in the election", described in detail for choice (c) above. "that were" is also wordy and can be removed without consequence.
Quote: e.) A new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.
when a subject phrase contains a prepositional modifier, you can't insert the verb between the noun and the modifier. at best it's nonsensical (as in this example), and at worst it changes the meaning of the sentence: my friend from florida came to the bar --> he's originally from florida my friend came to the bar from florida --> 3000 miles is a long, long way to go for some beers.
ergo, you can't divorce "4m to 6m votes" from "of the 100m votes cast".
Quote:
a.) Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United Stated presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.
the "which" is suboptimal here, because it may also be taken to modify the election itself. i'm not sure, though, whether the gmat would label it as outright wrong. by far the most grievous error in this choice is "they", which doesn't refer to anything. it's also among the easiest things to spot, too; basically, you should keep a close eye on ANY pronoun that you see in a sentence.
Quote: b.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at pollingplaces, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted.
correct answer. the initial subject-less modifier modifies the immediately following noun (a new study), as required. there are no pronoun problems.
Quote: c.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.
the initial modifier doesn't have a subject, so it is attributed to the immediately following noun. unfortunately, in this case the immediately following noun is "4m to 6m of the ... votes", which makes no sense. the placement of "cast" vis-à-vis "in the election" also doesn't make sense here; those two are dissociated from each other. the wording of the sentence seems to imply that the votes were simply "cast" - not in this or that election, but just "cast" - and that they simply "weren't counted in the 2000 election". the literal interpretation is that the votes may still have counted in some other election.
analogy: many of the drinks at the party were not consumed --> nobody drank them, ever. many of the drinks were not consumed at the party --> they may have been consumed later. same problem.
Quote: d.) A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000 United States presidential election.
the biggest problem is the relative placement of "cast" vis-à-vis "in the election", described in detail for choice (c) above. "that were" is also wordy and can be removed without consequence.
Quote: e.) A new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.
when a subject phrase contains a prepositional modifier, you can't insert the verb between the noun and the modifier. at best it's nonsensical (as in this example), and at worst it changes the meaning of the sentence: my friend from florida came to the bar --> he's originally from florida my friend came to the bar from florida --> 3000 miles is a long, long way to go for some beers.
ergo, you can't divorce "4m to 6m votes" from "of the 100m votes cast".作者: beiminghanxing 时间: 2010-10-19 10:42
自己顶！！！作者: 芥兰叶 时间: 2010-11-14 13:19 这个要顶作者: beiminghanxing 时间: 2010-11-14 18:28
这个要顶
