222. By a vote of 9 to 0, the Supreme Court awarded the Central Intelligence Agency broad discretionary(任意的，自由决定的) powers enabling it to withhold from the public the identities of its sources of intelligence information.
(A) enabling it to withhold from the public
(B) for it to withhold from the public(用不定式，成了目的状语，主语应该是supreme court, nonsense…)
(C) for withholding disclosure to the public of
(D) that enable them to withhold from public disclosure
(E) that they can withhold public disclosure of
Choice A is best: enabling ... clearly modifies powers, it refers logically and grammatically to the Central Intelligence Agency, and to withhold from the public is concisely and idiomatically phrased. In choices B and C, the preposition for is used unidiomatically in place of the "-ing" modifier to introduce the phrase describing powers. In choices C, D, and E, withholding)... disclosure is wordy and imprecise, since it is really the identities that are to be withheld. The plural pronouns them in D and they in E do not agree with the singular Agency, and that in E mistakenly introduces a new independent clause rather than a modifying phrase for
powers.
这里为什么不可以用从句修饰powers?(如红字所示)
抛开E中其它的错误不谈，
单纯从修饰来看,ETS认为分词短语优于从句去修饰中心词,
理由是更简洁，并且与中心词的关系更明确!
那OG15
15. In his research paper, Dr. Frosh, medical director of the Payne Whitney Clinic, distinguishes mood swings. which may be violent without their being grounded in mental disease, from genuine manic-depressive psychosis.
(A) mood swings, which may be violent without their being grounded in mental disease, from genuine manic-depressive psychosis
(B) mood swings, perhaps violent without being grounded in mental disease, and genuine manic-depressive psychosis ,
(C) between mood swings, which may be violent without being grounded in mental disease, and genuine manic-depressive psychosis
(D) between mood swings, perhaps violent without being grounded in mental disease, from genuine manic-depressive psychosis
(E) genuine manic-depressive psychosis and mood swings, which may be violent without being grounded in mental disease
The best choice is C because it uses the idiomatically correct expression distinguishes between x and y and because it provides a structure in which the relative clause beginning which may be violent clearly modifies mood swings. The other choices use distinguishes in unidiomatic constructions. Additionally, their in A is intrusive and unnecessary, and the modifier of mood swings in B and D (perhaps violent) is awkward and less clear than the more developed clause which may be violent.
为什么说in B and D (perhaps violent) is awkward and less clear than the more developed clause which may be violent.
需用句子而不用短语???
222. By a vote of 9 to 0, the Supreme Court awarded the Central Intelligence Agency broad discretionary(任意的，自由决定的) powers enabling it to withhold from the public the identities of its sources of intelligence information.
(A) enabling it to withhold from the public
(B) for it to withhold from the public(用不定式，成了目的状语，主语应该是supreme court, nonsense…)
(C) for withholding disclosure to the public of
(D) that enable them to withhold from public disclosure
(E) that they can withhold public disclosure of
Choice A is best: enabling ... clearly modifies powers, it refers logically and grammatically to the Central Intelligence Agency, and to withhold from the public is concisely and idiomatically phrased. In choices B and C, the preposition for is used unidiomatically in place of the "-ing" modifier to introduce the phrase describing powers. In choices C, D, and E, withholding)... disclosure is wordy and imprecise, since it is really the identities that are to be withheld. The plural pronouns them in D and they in E do not agree with the singular Agency, and that in E mistakenly introduces a new independent clause rather than a modifying phrase for
powers.
这里为什么不可以用从句修饰powers?(如红字所示)
那OG15
15. In his research paper, Dr. Frosh, medical director of the Payne Whitney Clinic, distinguishes mood swings. which may be violent without their being grounded in mental disease, from genuine manic-depressive psychosis.
(A) mood swings, which may be violent without their being grounded in mental disease, from genuine manic-depressive psychosis
(B) mood swings, perhaps violent without being grounded in mental disease, and genuine manic-depressive psychosis ,
(C) between mood swings, which may be violent without being grounded in mental disease, and genuine manic-depressive psychosis
(D) between mood swings, perhaps violent without being grounded in mental disease, from genuine manic-depressive psychosis
(E) genuine manic-depressive psychosis and mood swings, which may be violent without being grounded in mental disease
The best choice is C because it uses the idiomatically correct expression distinguishes between x and y and because it provides a structure in which the relative clause beginning which may be violent clearly modifies mood swings. The other choices use distinguishes in unidiomatic constructions. Additionally, their in A is intrusive and unnecessary, and the modifier of mood swings in B and D (perhaps violent) is awkward and less clear than the more developed clause which may be violent.
为什么说in B and D (perhaps violent) is awkward and less clear than the more developed clause which may be violent.
需用句子而不用短语???
这个我感觉是修饰对象问题，用which修饰的是mood swings,而短语，修饰的distinguish，好像是哪个NN说的限定性和非限定性定语从句的区别，这个偶也拿不太准，使用这个规则一时判断对一时判断不对的，希望哪位NN再出来讲解一下，最好陪个例子
从句一般只修饰前面紧跟的先行词，分词可以跳跃修饰，也可以就近修饰。分词的修饰有时候必须从意思和逻辑上理解才能选出正确答案，这个比较难些。
og222，that从句修饰discretionary powers?不和逻辑的。另外they在that从句中使用也是错误的。
E的錯誤其實是多重的, 包含:錯誤使用從句(修飾的先行詞不明), 單複數一致性不正確, 不夠簡潔, 等等...
其實我覺得, 首先就排除掉帶有 "disclosure" 的三個選項了... 因為redundancy...
可是我想問一下: 為什麼不能選B 呢?
(P.S. 我還不太會用 "引用" 的功能...)
powers.
这里为什么不可以用从句修饰powers?(如红字所示)
这个解释已经很清楚了，原句是一个限定成分，如果改成定语从句变成非限定成分。关系不够紧密。
区别可以简单翻译一下看看：原句是说授予sb一种使sb能够。。。的sth
如果变成从句意思是：授予sb. sth，这种sth使sb能够。。。
细微的差别在于如果是限定性的，这个sth本身就是以这种功能为目的或具有这种属性的。如果是非限制性的，跟sth本身没有太大关联，只是因为它使sb能够实现这种功能或属性了。
他吃了片消炎药 和 他吃了片药，这片药可以帮助他消炎。前面是说这片药本身就是消炎药，后面只是说了一片药，至于是什么药不知道，总之可以消炎。
这个解释已经很清楚了，原句是一个限定成分，如果改成定语从句变成非限定成分。关系不够紧密。
区别可以简单翻译一下看看：原句是说授予sb一种使sb能够。。。的sth
如果变成从句意思是：授予sb. sth，这种sth使sb能够。。。
细微的差别在于如果是限定性的，这个sth本身就是以这种功能为目的或具有这种属性的。如果是非限制性的，跟sth本身没有太大关联，只是因为它使sb能够实现这种功能或属性了。
他吃了片消炎药 和 他吃了片药，这片药可以帮助他消炎。前面是说这片药本身就是消炎药，后面只是说了一片药，至于是什么药不知道，总之可以消炎。
这个解释精辟，尤其是消炎药的例子，简直是神来之笔，解我多日未开之茅塞。哈哈。谢谢。
另外，为啥没有人关注In choices B and C, the preposition for is used unidiomatically in place of the "-ing" modifier to introduce the phrase describing powers 哪？是不是太简单了？为什么不能用for it to withhold哪？我觉得，表示赋予它这个Power的目的，也没什么不合适的呀？能否请哪位点拨一下。谢谢了。
同问，顶一下！
这个解释已经很清楚了，原句是一个限定成分，如果改成定语从句变成非限定成分。关系不够紧密。
区别可以简单翻译一下看看：原句是说授予sb一种使sb能够。。。的sth
如果变成从句意思是：授予sb. sth，这种sth使sb能够。。。
细微的差别在于如果是限定性的，这个sth本身就是以这种功能为目的或具有这种属性的。如果是非限制性的，跟sth本身没有太大关联，只是因为它使sb能够实现这种功能或属性了。
他吃了片消炎药 和 他吃了片药，这片药可以帮助他消炎。前面是说这片药本身就是消炎药，后面只是说了一片药，至于是什么药不知道，总之可以消炎。
这个解释精辟，尤其是消炎药的例子，简直是神来之笔，解我多日未开之茅塞。哈哈。谢谢。
这个例子的确很地道，解开了我的疑惑。但是新的疑惑也产生了，那就是：“消炎药”，和“药，能够消炎”应该不是现分和定从的区别，而是有无enable这个词的区别吧。
大家看呢？
powers.
这里为什么不可以用从句修饰powers?(如红字所示)
这个解释已经很清楚了，原句是一个限定成分，如果改成定语从句变成非限定成分。关系不够紧密。
区别可以简单翻译一下看看：原句是说授予sb一种使sb能够。。。的sth
如果变成从句意思是：授予sb. sth，这种sth使sb能够。。。
细微的差别在于如果是限定性的，这个sth本身就是以这种功能为目的或具有这种属性的。如果是非限制性的，跟sth本身没有太大关联，只是因为它使sb能够实现这种功能或属性了。
他吃了片消炎药 和 他吃了片药，这片药可以帮助他消炎。前面是说这片药本身就是消炎药，后面只是说了一片药，至于是什么药不知道，总之可以消炎。
that 引导的不是 限定性定于从句吗？？ E又没有添加“，”
请指教
up!!
thanks
I believe "that" is restrictive usage too,
from the logic point of view, it seems to me "discretionary powers" = can withhold public discolsure....(despite the "they" mistake here);therefore i can't see why the introduction of "that" clause in E)is MISTAKEN...(not less clear than A...)
up up please!!
thanks in advance
我再把我的論點整理一下:
E) og 說 mistaken 應該是因為 that 的使用方法吧?
我看的出來 E) 如果使用 that can withhold public disclosure of the identities of its sources of intelligence informatoin 就會對了
而不是選項裡的 that they can withhold public disclosure of the identities of its sources of intellegence information
這個理解對嗎? 謝謝
。
E的錯誤其實是多重的, 包含:錯誤使用從句(修飾的先行詞不明), 單複數一致性不正確, 不夠簡潔, 等等...
其實我覺得, 首先就排除掉帶有 "disclosure" 的三個選項了... 因為redundancy...
why is "disclosure" redundant?
我想问问：为什么withholding)... disclosure is wordy and imprecise？
withhold 与disclosure有意思重复吗？
很想知道啊
引用OG 230
230. In reference to the current hostility toward smoking. smokers frequently expressed anxiety that their prospects for being hired and promoted are being stunted by their habit.
(A) In reference to the current hostility toward smoking, smokers frequently expressed anxiety that
(B) Referring to the current hostility toward smoking, smokers frequently expressed anxiety about
(C) When referring to the current hostility toward smoking, smokers frequently express anxiety about
(D) With reference to the current hostility toward smoking, smokers frequently expressed anxiety about
(E) Referring to the current hostility toward smoking, smokers frequently express anxiety that
选E
而OG222的
By a vote of 9 to 0, the Supreme Court awarded the Central Intelligence Agency broad discretionary(任意的，自由决定的) powers enabling it to withhold from the public the identities of its sources of intelligence information.
(A) enabling it to withhold from the public
(B) for it to withhold from the public(用不定式，成了目的状语，主语应该是supreme court, nonsense…)
(C) for withholding disclosure to the public of
(D) that enable them to withhold from public disclosure （E）
(E) that they can withhold public disclosure of
and that in E mistakenly introduces a new independent clause rather than a modifying phrase for powers.
UP！
这个解释已经很清楚了，原句是一个限定成分，如果改成定语从句变成非限定成分。关系不够紧密。
我搜索了相关的帖子，还是不明白为什么定语从句成了非限制成分？？？
那么b那里错了，是不是也和e一样，将原句的意思改变了？我理解是
the S.C. awarded the CIA discretionary powers for it (cia)to withhold from...
这里power后面的成分并不是用来解释是 一个什么样的power 而是这个power的功能是cia可以怎样怎样,对吗?
这个power 应该是名词 zt一下tianwan的解释
1, B的错误在于，实义动词enable不见了，句子意思有变化。
2, B带入原句：The Supreme Court awarded the CIA broad discretionary powers for it to withhold from the public the identities of sb. OG的解释非常不负责任。不定式前面加for sb.是标准的添加不定式逻辑主语的方法，所以这个for it to withhold from the public本身是没有问题的。但是，在这里这个带有逻辑主语的不定式带有二义性，它既可以做句子的目的状语，也可以做抽象词discretionary powers的同位语定语，产生了二义性。所以就像现在分词放在句中，搞不清楚是做状语还是定语一样，是不好的。
所以1和2决定了B是不完美的。实际上，并不是说B荒谬或错了，但这两点缺点造成了B不如A好。
3 看看it, (A) enabling it to withhold from the public中，则有：SC gives CIA powers enabling it to withhold the identities of its source of intelligent information from the public.
后面的its指向CIA(CIA才有source of intelligent information, 不要抬杠)，
所以it指向CIA。只能从逻辑上分析出来。从语法上分析，“og的意思不是说这里的it语法上就是指向Central Intelligence Agency的么？事实上就语法角度而言指代the Supreme Court 也是有可能的，对不？”ecsniffer的观点，我认为是正确的。
这一题ETS出的不严谨，解释也不严谨。
powers.
这里为什么不可以用从句修饰powers?(如红字所示)
这个解释已经很清楚了，原句是一个限定成分，如果改成定语从句变成非限定成分。关系不够紧密。
区别可以简单翻译一下看看：原句是说授予sb一种使sb能够。。。的sth
如果变成从句意思是：授予sb. sth，这种sth使sb能够。。。
细微的差别在于如果是限定性的，这个sth本身就是以这种功能为目的或具有这种属性的。如果是非限制性的，跟sth本身没有太大关联，只是因为它使sb能够实现这种功能或属性了。
他吃了片消炎药 和 他吃了片药，这片药可以帮助他消炎。前面是说这片药本身就是消炎药，后面只是说了一片药，至于是什么药不知道，总之可以消炎。
同学不会吧.定语从句不是限定性的吗.
我现在可是相当的
啊!受益匪浅。
btw，看到现在才醒悟过来，这道题是在说传说中的中央情报局啊。。
B,不对简单理解是有歧义.如26楼说得.
Supreme court awarded CIA power for it to withhold...
这里加for it不是说语法不允许,而是歧义, it 可以指代 CIA,也可以指代Supreme Court.....
-------SC 给CIA 权力,以便 SC可以withhold...
-------SC 给CIA 权力,以便CIA可以withhold...
********
E,仍旧期待解释...我怎么感觉讨论限定非限定有点跑题了啊....
1,如果不考虑E其他错误(they, disclosure..),that从句有啥错误么??
2,that不是引导限定从句么?
3,OG说"E mistakenly introduces a新的独立从句,而不是用修饰短语..."是不是在说从句不如分词短语精炼的意思啊.并不是因为that从句有问题(其他错误不计)?
翻了无数的讨论帖子，在这里终于明白为什么不选B了——有歧意。
恩 这里讨论的限定和非限定确实太confusing
我觉得其实就是分词优先定语从句，尤其是表示法令、权力等客观性、多次性、重复性的时候
恩 这里讨论的限定和非限定确实太confusing
我觉得其实就是分词优先定语从句，尤其是表示法令、权力等客观性、多次性、重复性的时候
强烈赞同！
222. By a vote of 9 to 0, the Supreme Court awarded the Central Intelligence Agency broad discretionary powers enabling it to withhold from the public the identities of its sources of intelligence information.
(A)
enabling it to withhold from the public 【现在分词引导的修饰成分，直接修饰前面的powers，表示重复性的enable。。。。】
(B)
for it to withhold from the public 【for,改变原文意思，有因为。。。而award，表原因的意思？】
(C)
for withholding disclosure to the public of 【同上， 同时for + witholding,介词后加现在分词不符合语法习惯】
(D)
that enable them to withhold from public
disclosure 【定语从句修饰powers，表示一次性的动作，不如A更能表达原文意思】
(E) that they can withhold public disclosure of 【they指代不清，同时错误地将withold的宾语从正确的identities变成了public disclosoure , 意思变成：可以截留its sources 的定义的公众揭露 ==》 语义不通】
大家再讨论吧。。
powers.
这里为什么不可以用从句修饰powers?(如红字所示)
这个解释已经很清楚了，原句是一个限定成分，如果改成定语从句变成非限定成分。关系不够紧密。
区别可以简单翻译一下看看：原句是说授予sb一种使sb能够。。。的sth
如果变成从句意思是：授予sb. sth，这种sth使sb能够。。。
细微的差别在于如果是限定性的，这个sth本身就是以这种功能为目的或具有这种属性的。如果是非限制性的，跟sth本身没有太大关联，只是因为它使sb能够实现这种功能或属性了。
他吃了片消炎药 和 他吃了片药，这片药可以帮助他消炎。前面是说这片药本身就是消炎药，后面只是说了一片药，至于是什么药不知道，总之可以消炎。
E答案为限定性成分哦，后置分词分句一般为非限定的.
为什么不选E，个人观点是，
discretionary的意义为not controlled by strict rules, but decided on by someone in a position of authority, 因此, 后面的从句部分实际上是对前面discretionary特性的一个补充说明, 因此, 此处应该使用非限定修饰成分, 而无需限定修饰成分进一步来对discretionary powers来限定.
所以就选A不选E
前面的人说反了。。enabling是非限定，而that是限定。
enabling是用来解释是什么样的power，而that是用来描述这个power,不够紧凑。这样解释才对吧。。
(C) 【同上， 同时for + witholding,介词后加现在分词不符合语法习惯】
for withholding disclosure to the public of
【同上， 同时for + witholding,介词后加现在分词不符合语法习惯】
withholding是动名词吧？！ 介词+动名词是可以的啊？！
分词表示持续的动作，从句表示一次性的动作，所以enabling更好？
from the public the identities of its sources of intelligence information. 这句话能不能翻译一下，看不懂……from the public是不是放在句子最后的？
B,不对简单理解是有歧义.如26楼说得.
Supreme court awarded CIA power for it to withhold...
这里加for it不是说语法不允许,而是歧义, it 可以指代 CIA,也可以指代Supreme Court.....
-------SC 给CIA 权力,以便 SC可以withhold...
-------SC 给CIA 权力,以便CIA可以withhold...
********
E,仍旧期待解释...我怎么感觉讨论限定非限定有点跑题了啊....
1,如果不考虑E其他错误(they, disclosure..),that从句有啥错误么??
2,that不是引导限定从句么?
3,OG说"E mistakenly introduces a新的独立从句,而不是用修饰短语..."是不是在说从句不如分词短语精炼的意思啊.并不是因为that从句有问题(其他错误不计)?
B中的it如果有歧义，那么A中的it没有歧义？我觉得这2个选项中的it都有毛病：it 可以指代 CIA,也可以指代Supreme Court。困惑。。。
A与B的差别在于enabling与for的差别，有人可以说说吗？
从其他帖子上看到： enable是使……能够，for表目的，两者意思不一样，从句意上分析，enable更好
不过it的指代问题还是很难解释啊。。。
(E) that they can withhold public disclosure of
that in E mistakenly introduces a new independent clause rather than a modifying phrase for powers.
E中明显是同位语从句，他想用That引导的同位从句来修饰power。
先不论这种修饰是否wordy and awkward ，在同位语从句的使用上这就有问题了。因为同位语从句是要对先行的名词进行解释，其最基本的一条是要对该词有解释力。
they can withhold public disclosure of。。。。。。中看不出明显的是对power的解释，所以一般采用 ，power that be/do的形式进行解释。而这样不如用修饰语直接修饰power来得更简便和直接。
实际上，能用that引导作解释的同位语的名词其实不多的，限于idea，plan， fact，theory，promise，hope，news，doubt，truth，information，suggestion，question， thought，belief，conclusion等等。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |