ChaseDream

标题: 大全25 [打印本页]

作者: willandgrace 时间: 2004-8-6 00:09
标题: 大全25

1. A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.

(A) supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that

(B) supporting the theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact

(D) in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and that（B）

(E) of support for the theory of a meteorite impact that ignited global forest fires and

请问A错在哪儿?

作者: joe11 时间: 2004-8-6 01:28

1. A is redundant

2. supporting + n. > prep. expression (the theory of)

3. there is a logic error

impact that contributed to the extinction

Obviously, it's the 'global fires' that contributed to the extinction, not the 'impact'.

作者: willandgrace 时间: 2004-8-6 01:32
thx

作者: looook 时间: 2004-10-17 09:11

theory of 指关于…的理论，而theory that指…说的是什么
本句显然不是指全球大火的理论，而是那种...的说法。

至于到底是大火使生物灭亡，还是碰撞使生物灭亡，我相信不是考点。

本题的讨论还有

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=23&ID=27118
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&ID=74057&page=1

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-17 9:25:55编辑过]

作者: sch 时间: 2007-7-15 03:20

以下是引用looook在2004-10-17 9:11:00的发言：

theory of 指关于…的理论，而theory that指…说的是什么
本句显然不是指全球大火的理论，而是那种...的说法。

至于到底是大火使生物灭亡，还是碰撞使生物灭亡，我相信不是考点。

本题的讨论还有

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=23&ID=27118 http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&ID=74057&page=1

同意:

在没有学科背景的前提下,凭什么判断"撞击引发灭绝"不合逻辑.

我发现很多题都是这么来解释,问题是,如果不知道选项A是否正确的前提下,怎么判断"改变原意"怎么判断"不合逻辑"

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