ChaseDream

标题: 还是prep的问题。。。谢谢~~ [打印本页]

作者: 布布布布布丁    时间: 2011-11-8 19:10
标题: 还是prep的问题。。。谢谢~~
United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic Party during his first term, that included assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.
A. that included
B. which includes
C. including
D. some of which were
E. among them being

选项分析:
A. 引导普通的非限定定语从句用which;改为which后,which与所指的posts相隔太远,也不太好。
B. 根据句意,定语从句应该修饰several posts,故为复数,使用includes错误,并且时态上讲应该使用一般过去时;which与所指的posts相隔太远,不好。
C. Correct;including比which included更为简洁、明确,including介词短语修饰前面短语的核心词posts。
D. some of which与所指的posts相隔太远。
E. Being累赘;among them being修饰对象不明确(awkward),并且无法引导独立主格。

为什么除介词之外的其他形式都不能修饰核心词汇?为什么介词形式可以修饰核心词汇?
作者: vinbobo    时间: 2011-11-8 21:18
United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic Party during his first term, that included assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.
A. that included
B. which includes
C. including
D. some of which were
E. among them being

选项分析:
A. 引导普通的非限定定语从句用which;改为which后,which与所指的posts相隔太远,也不太好。
B. 根据句意,定语从句应该修饰several posts,故为复数,使用includes错误,并且时态上讲应该使用一般过去时;which与所指的posts相隔太远,不好。
C. Correct;including比which included更为简洁、明确,including介词短语修饰前面短语的核心词posts。
D. some of which与所指的posts相隔太远。
E. Being累赘;among them being修饰对象不明确(awkward),并且无法引导独立主格。

为什么除介词之外的其他形式都不能修饰核心词汇?为什么介词形式可以修饰核心词汇?
-- by 会员 布布布布布丁 (2011/11/8 19:10:19)


这题目其实编写的很垃圾,而且C并非完美,只是相对较好
including作为介词,在逗号后面修饰前面的子句,因此只有它够长可以够到posts,逻辑上其实有些模糊.D选项的结构其实蛮好的,只是隔了两个介词修饰结构太远了
不过个人觉得C/D不一定谁好,不过既然 GMAC是老大,只能背下来了
作者: 布布布布布丁    时间: 2011-11-9 00:45
United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic Party during his first term, that included assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.A. that includedB. which includesC. includingD. some of which wereE. among them being选项分析:A. 引导普通的非限定定语从句用which;改为which后,which与所指的posts相隔太远,也不太好。B. 根据句意,定语从句应该修饰several posts,故为复数,使用includes错误,并且时态上讲应该使用一般过去时;which与所指的posts相隔太远,不好。C. Correct;including比which included更为简洁、明确,including介词短语修饰前面短语的核心词posts。D. some of which与所指的posts相隔太远。E. Being累赘;among them being修饰对象不明确(awkward),并且无法引导独立主格。为什么除介词之外的其他形式都不能修饰核心词汇?为什么介词形式可以修饰核心词汇?-- by 会员 布布布布布丁 (2011/11/8 19:10:19)
这题目其实编写的很垃圾,而且C并非完美,只是相对较好including作为介词,在逗号后面修饰前面的子句,因此只有它够长可以够到posts,逻辑上其实有些模糊.D选项的结构其实蛮好的,只是隔了两个介词修饰结构太远了不过个人觉得C/D不一定谁好,不过既然 GMAC是老大,只能背下来了-- by 会员 vinbobo (2011/11/8 21:18:38)
唔。。赶脚这位仁兄还是木有回答我的问题啊。。
作者: vinbobo    时间: 2011-11-9 07:38
United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic Party during his first term, that included assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.A. that includedB. which includesC. includingD. some of which wereE. among them being选项分析:A. 引导普通的非限定定语从句用which;改为which后,which与所指的posts相隔太远,也不太好。B. 根据句意,定语从句应该修饰several posts,故为复数,使用includes错误,并且时态上讲应该使用一般过去时;which与所指的posts相隔太远,不好。C. Correct;including比which included更为简洁、明确,including介词短语修饰前面短语的核心词posts。D. some of which与所指的posts相隔太远。E. Being累赘;among them being修饰对象不明确(awkward),并且无法引导独立主格。为什么除介词之外的其他形式都不能修饰核心词汇?为什么介词形式可以修饰核心词汇?-- by 会员 布布布布布丁 (2011/11/8 19:10:19)
这题目其实编写的很垃圾,而且C并非完美,只是相对较好including作为介词,在逗号后面修饰前面的子句,因此只有它够长可以够到posts,逻辑上其实有些模糊.D选项的结构其实蛮好的,只是隔了两个介词修饰结构太远了不过个人觉得C/D不一定谁好,不过既然 GMAC是老大,只能背下来了-- by 会员 vinbobo (2011/11/8 21:18:38)
唔。。赶脚这位仁兄还是木有回答我的问题啊。。
-- by 会员 布布布布布丁 (2011/11/9 0:45:40)


饿,简单的说
修饰名词需要靠近修饰,但是这里修饰语和名词之间隔了两个修饰词,因此太远
介词形式修饰的是句子,所以句子到哪里,就修饰到哪里,但是,根据绝大多数题目,逗号后面介词组在修辞上并不是修饰posts,而是修饰句子的,所以理论上跟句子的主语关系更近。不知道这么说你觉得如何
作者: vinbobo    时间: 2011-11-9 07:45
另外,这里修饰的对象是“ to several posts”
作者: 布布布布布丁    时间: 2011-11-9 13:54
United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic Party during his first term, that included assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.A. that includedB. which includesC. includingD. some of which wereE. among them being选项分析:A. 引导普通的非限定定语从句用which;改为which后,which与所指的posts相隔太远,也不太好。B. 根据句意,定语从句应该修饰several posts,故为复数,使用includes错误,并且时态上讲应该使用一般过去时;which与所指的posts相隔太远,不好。C. Correct;including比which included更为简洁、明确,including介词短语修饰前面短语的核心词posts。D. some of which与所指的posts相隔太远。E. Being累赘;among them being修饰对象不明确(awkward),并且无法引导独立主格。为什么除介词之外的其他形式都不能修饰核心词汇?为什么介词形式可以修饰核心词汇?-- by 会员 布布布布布丁 (2011/11/8 19:10:19)
这题目其实编写的很垃圾,而且C并非完美,只是相对较好including作为介词,在逗号后面修饰前面的子句,因此只有它够长可以够到posts,逻辑上其实有些模糊.D选项的结构其实蛮好的,只是隔了两个介词修饰结构太远了不过个人觉得C/D不一定谁好,不过既然 GMAC是老大,只能背下来了-- by 会员 vinbobo (2011/11/8 21:18:38)
唔。。赶脚这位仁兄还是木有回答我的问题啊。。
-- by 会员 布布布布布丁 (2011/11/9 0:45:40)



饿,简单的说
修饰名词需要靠近修饰,但是这里修饰语和名词之间隔了两个修饰词,因此太远
介词形式修饰的是句子,所以句子到哪里,就修饰到哪里,但是,根据绝大多数题目,逗号后面介词组在修辞上并不是修饰posts,而是修饰句子的,所以理论上跟句子的主语关系更近。不知道这么说你觉得如何
-- by 会员 vinbobo (2011/11/9 7:38:31)




唔,介词词组修饰整个句子?有木有例句支持这种说法啊




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