ChaseDream

标题: OG12 74 用语义也不能理解 [打印本页]

作者: fanlynx 时间: 2012-5-22 21:52
标题: OG12 74 用语义也不能理解
74. A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that
municipalities had been allowed to dump into the
Great Lakes.
(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities正确答案为D，LZ选的A
从语法上来说A没有问题啊，had been前面有一般过去时
从语义上，LZ是这么理解的
that从句修饰那个amount，那个通过协议减少的amount是协议签订前被允许的amount，也就是过去的过去
所以我觉得A反而更好啊~
那位NN快来指出我哪里想错了啊~~~

作者: abc88 时间: 2012-5-22 23:19
水一下。这题自己也看过几遍了。很能够理解lz的想法啊！！说得不好见谅啊~
XDF 讲义说。“政府法令具有持续性应该是得用一般时态的”

OG解释说，had been allowed 这个时态说明过去一段时间允许倾倒磷肥, 现在已经不允许了。
但是，因为倾倒磷肥这个动作在协议（agreement）之后任然继续，所以用一般现在时。
og 中解释第二句，Since the dumping continued after the date of the agreement, the past perfect verb HAD BEEN ALLOWED should instead be the present ARE ALLOWED .........

ps: that 似乎应该修饰 phosphates 吧？ that 应该紧跟先行词。

白勇的语法全解上面答案还是错误的A 和lz选的一样！
白勇是这么写的
第一步：时间标志 1972 决定了谓语动词reduce 必须使用一般过去时态。排除C、E
“D选项定语从句的一般现在时 are allowed to ... 与主句的一般过去时态 reduced sth., 时态不协调。排除 D 这个说错啦！！
第二步：定语从句就近修饰名词 amount, Municipalities had/have been dumping amount to the Great Lakes. 动作 dump 和动作对象 amount, 逻辑搭配不合理。排除 B、C。

白勇的答案和 OG 上的不一致。应该还是以OG 为准的吧！

作者: 12604698 时间: 2012-5-23 10:00
og解释： Since the dumping continued after the date of the agreement, the past perfect verb bad been allowed should instead be the present are allowed (if the agreement remained in effect when the sentence was written) or the past were allowed (if the agreement was no longer in effect when the sentence was written).

我的理解：定语从句修饰的是pho。。不是amount of P。即定语从句意思是：被允许倒的P，而非lz所说：之前被允许倒的量。
所以agreement之后还在倒，不能用完成时。

作者: Linsky 时间: 2012-5-23 20:07
语义上理解的话，D应该是指减少了可以被dump的数量，A是指减少了过去已经允许被dump的数量，具有已完成意义，所以D更准确一些

作者: fanlynx 时间: 2012-5-25 20:07

水一下。这题自己也看过几遍了。很能够理解lz的想法啊！！说得不好见谅啊~
XDF 讲义说。“政府法令具有持续性应该是得用一般时态的”

OG解释说，had been allowed 这个时态说明过去一段时间允许倾倒磷肥, 现在已经不允许了。
但是，因为倾倒磷肥这个动作在协议（agreement）之后任然继续，所以用一般现在时。
og 中解释第二句，Since the dumping continued after the date of the agreement, the past perfect verb HAD BEEN ALLOWED should instead be the present ARE ALLOWED .........

ps: that 似乎应该修饰 phosphates 吧？ that 应该紧跟先行词。

白勇的语法全解上面答案还是错误的A 和lz选的一样！
白勇是这么写的
第一步：时间标志 1972 决定了谓语动词reduce 必须使用一般过去时态。排除C、E
“D选项定语从句的一般现在时 are allowed to ... 与主句的一般过去时态 reduced sth., 时态不协调。排除 D 这个说错啦！！
第二步：定语从句就近修饰名词 amount, Municipalities had/have been dumping amount to the Great Lakes. 动作 dump 和动作对象 amount, 逻辑搭配不合理。排除 B、C。

白勇的答案和 OG 上的不一致。应该还是以OG 为准的吧！

-- by 会员 abc88 (2012/5/22 23:19:22)

先道个歉....发完了贴没有及时回复~~该打该打~一定改掉这个坏习惯
嗯明白了！
我不知道为什么一直觉得that是修饰amount的
大概是钻到死胡同里出不来了然后自己的答案还越想越对。。。。。汗。。。
谢谢！

作者: fanlynx 时间: 2012-5-25 20:08

og解释： Since the dumping continued after the date of the agreement, the past perfect verb bad been allowed should instead be the present are allowed (if the agreement remained in effect when the sentence was written) or the past were allowed (if the agreement was no longer in effect when the sentence was written).

我的理解：定语从句修饰的是pho。。不是amount of P。即定语从句意思是：被允许倒的P，而非lz所说：之前被允许倒的量。
所以agreement之后还在倒，不能用完成时。

-- by 会员 12604698 (2012/5/23 10:00:49)

明白了！！谢谢！！抱歉回复完啦~~~

作者: wellsli 时间: 2012-6-24 21:36
根据manhattan的深层次理解，这句话分两部分，第一部分：agreement 去 reduced，没有异议吧。第二部分：municipalities are allowed to dump。 manhattan 说：
Do not une the perfect tense when the simple tense will do. The GMAT prefer simplicy.

Wrong: Joe learned about an epoch in which dinosaurs had walked the earth.
Right: Joe learned about an epoch in which dinosaurs walked the earth.

in the first example, the past perfect had walked is unecessary. Although the action had walked does take earlier than the action learned, th eariler action does not bearing on the context of the later action. The sequence of time does not need to be clarified or emphasized. Thus, the past perfect is considered wrong in this context.

You should use the pefect tense only when you can justify them with the rules described in these sections. if an action begin in the past and continue to the present (or its effect does), use the present perfect tense. If one action in the past precedes another, and you need to clarify or emphasize the time sequence, then use the past pefect. Otherwise, stick to the simple tenses.

这一题，我发现，确实虽然第一部分很可能发生在第二部分之后（先允许倾倒再减少），但是是“agreement”去reduce，而allowed 是市政府被allowed，两部分没有意思上很密切的关联，没有去clarify和emphasis它们之间先后顺序的必要，因此！不用had been 也不用have been。再者OG喜欢简单，喜欢一般时态，所以用are allowed。

看了别人manhattan的分析才这样想的~

作者: Elroy 时间: 2012-6-26 00:07
思路：
A：订立【法规条文】，所修改的东西一定是【从订立起始点，以后生效的东西】所以had beend 是个错误时态； 1972年的法律不能减少市民在那之前被允许倾倒的垃圾的量；也就是说法规的内容的时态或者和订立是相同，或者比订立时晚

B：phosphate amount是个很挫的表达方式，一般改成amount of phosphates；had been as in A;
随意删掉了A中的实意动词allow，改变了句意，不是减少市民倾倒的垃圾，而是减少允许他们倾倒的垃圾；

C：reduces 不能修饰1972年得agreement,改为reduced ; have been allowed改为are allowed ；phosphate amount是个很挫的表达方式，一般改成amount of phosphates；

D：正确；that 的补出，结构清晰

E：reduces 不能修饰1972年得agreement,改为reduced ; allowed for dumping 错误， be allowed to do ；原句说municipalities had been市民被允许去倾倒，这里allowed for dumping by municipalities 被市民允许去倾倒的

总结：
保留介词结构(除非介词是of有时允许变化)，一些结构，最好不要省略介词结构==>location, places, time, period, quantity or other measurements (也不要用物主格来描述这些词:比如The bee's population…. Orz)

作者: kjia0120 时间: 2012-7-24 17:43

根据manhattan的深层次理解，这句话分两部分，第一部分：agreement 去 reduced，没有异议吧。第二部分：municipalities are allowed to dump。 manhattan 说：
Do not une the perfect tense when the simple tense will do. The GMAT prefer simplicy.

Wrong: Joe learned about an epoch in which dinosaurs had walked the earth.
Right: Joe learned about an epoch in which dinosaurs walked the earth.

in the first example, the past perfect had walked is unecessary. Although the action had walked does take earlier than the action learned, th eariler action does not bearing on the context of the later action. The sequence of time does not need to be clarified or emphasized. Thus, the past perfect is considered wrong in this context.

You should use the pefect tense only when you can justify them with the rules described in these sections. if an action begin in the past and continue to the present (or its effect does), use the present perfect tense. If one action in the past precedes another, and you need to clarify or emphasize the time sequence, then use the past pefect. Otherwise, stick to the simple tenses.

这一题，我发现，确实虽然第一部分很可能发生在第二部分之后（先允许倾倒再减少），但是是“agreement”去reduce，而allowed 是市政府被allowed，两部分没有意思上很密切的关联，没有去clarify和emphasis它们之间先后顺序的必要，因此！不用had been 也不用have been。再者OG喜欢简单，喜欢一般时态，所以用are allowed。

看了别人manhattan的分析才这样想的~

-- by 会员 wellsli (2012/6/24 21:36:13)

顶一下
lz说的太好了
考试的时候哪有那么多时间去分析什么时间啦逻辑啦
看到只剩 A 和 D
GMAC喜欢简单直接秒选D了

作者: kjia0120 时间: 2012-7-24 17:45

思路：
A：订立【法规条文】，所修改的东西一定是【从订立起始点，以后生效的东西】所以had beend 是个错误时态； 1972年的法律不能减少市民在那之前被允许倾倒的垃圾的量；也就是说法规的内容的时态或者和订立是相同，或者比订立时晚

B：phosphate amount是个很挫的表达方式，一般改成amount of phosphates；had been as in A;
随意删掉了A中的实意动词allow，改变了句意，不是减少市民倾倒的垃圾，而是减少允许他们倾倒的垃圾；

C：reduces 不能修饰1972年得agreement,改为reduced ; have been allowed改为are allowed ；phosphate amount是个很挫的表达方式，一般改成amount of phosphates；

D：正确；that 的补出，结构清晰

E：reduces 不能修饰1972年得agreement,改为reduced ; allowed for dumping 错误， be allowed to do ；原句说municipalities had been市民被允许去倾倒，这里allowed for dumping by municipalities 被市民允许去倾倒的

总结：
保留介词结构(除非介词是of有时允许变化)，一些结构，最好不要省略介词结构==>location, places, time, period, quantity or other measurements (也不要用物主格来描述这些词:比如The bee's population…. Orz)

-- by 会员 Elroy (2012/6/26 0:07:04)

汗。。。
我还刚想骂抄人家Elroy的东西也不注明出处。。。。。
结果发现居然是本人。。。。

作者: renco 时间: 2012-7-27 09:35
A选项逻辑错的一塌糊涂。had been allowed这个动作是在reduce之前吧，你是在说你有改变过去的力量么？

作者: evlily8783 时间: 2012-8-1 10:08
借宝地弱弱地问一下：

我还是不明白为什么that指代的是phosphates而不是amount呢？that是应该紧贴指代的名词或含有简单修饰语的名词短语，这里不能把amount of phosphates看成简单的名词短语么？

如果“减少”的是“amount of phosphates”，那A选项是不是也说得通呢？

求NN现身相助~

作者: xiaojindiao 时间: 2012-8-6 12:52
刚刚也在纠结这个题，也是跟LZ一样，把 the amount of phosphates看成是一个整体，所以就总感觉这个数量是在以前被允许的数量上减少下来的，所以应该用had been allowed to dump。

但刚刚看到LZ的理解，感觉豁然开朗了:

LZ说"that"是用来修饰“amount”，但其实that应该是用来修饰后面的“phosphate”，这个才是被允许倒在湖里的东西，所以that后面的从句跟前面的"agreement"以及“reduced”什么都没有关系，不用考虑哪个先哪个后，它只是很客观的在修饰“phosphate”，指明它才是那个被允许DUMP的东西。

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