ChaseDream

标题: 质疑lzm p17 E1-12 [打印本页]

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-7 20:09
标题: 质疑lzm p17 E1-12
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 extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.

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

参考答案未B.但我认为A好一些。

原句在语法上和逻辑上没有错误。LZM认为支持森林火的理论不对没有根据。因为原文并没有告诉我们森林火的理论究竟对不对。

但是我们知道至少是meteorite impact导致了dinosaurs的extinction,而原文的that 从句正好修饰impact.

B将原句意思变成了森林火导致了dinosaur extinction.这及违反常识，更主要的是违背原句意思。

作者: joywzy 时间: 2003-7-7 21:43
mzyzhu,

what is the theory?

That is global forest fires ignited by a meteorite imapct
, such expression is idiom and consise.

作者: tocean0222 时间: 2003-7-7 23:16

以下是引用mzyzhu在2003-7-7 20:09:00的发言：
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 extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.

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

参考答案未B.但我认为A好一些。

原句在语法上和逻辑上没有错误。LZM认为支持森林火的理论不对没有根据。因为原文并没有告诉我们森林火的理论究竟对不对。

但是我们知道至少是meteorite impact导致了dinosaurs的extinction,而原文的that 从句正好修饰impact.

B将原句意思变成了森林火导致了dinosaur extinction.这及违反常识，更主要的是违背原句意思。

1、如果用的A的话， a of b结构的中心词是a , 这样的话ignited...修饰的就是theory,这是不符合逻辑的；
2、用that..来修饰theory，句意表达更为清晰，没有歧义；

anyway,mzyzhu,thanks for your good question, but I wanna remind you of the rule in SC: choosing the better choice, which comforms to formal and concise english, primarily relies on the original sense of a sentence rather than comman knowledge.

good luck!

作者: lyricling 时间: 2003-7-8 00:22
the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impacti 你不觉得这样的表达别扭吗？

that contributed to这个定语从句从意思上来讲应该修饰fires而不是impact.
森林火直接导致了恐龙灭绝。

作者: rogersun 时间: 2003-7-8 00:23
I think B is correct, but A is incorrect. if you choose A, the meaning will be that meteorite impact contributes the extinction of Dianosaur. however, the original sentence is talking about that forest fires contribute to the extinction of dianosaur. therefore, B is much clear that A

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-8 01:44
我的贴子一直贴不上去。

我就不知道为什么大家一上来就认定forest fire 导致dinosaur extinction.原文那一点提示了这一点。

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-8 01:47
if B is the right answer, then sentence meaning has changed from "meteroite impact cause dinosaur extinction" to "a globle forest fire cause the extinction of dinosaur". 这首先就违背了不要轻易改变句子的原意。that's opposite the original sense of a sentence.

second, the "clay" is the result of meteroite impact not of the global forest fire.如果是全球森林大火的证据应该是ash deposits.

third, 原句中文意思为：最近对古代粘土沉积物的研究为全球森林大火理论提供了新证据，该大火由殒星撞击造成，该撞击还导致了恐龙以及其他多种生物在650万年前的灭绝。这个句子无论在语法上，逻辑上，还是常识上都没有错。

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-8 01:48
相反，按照LZM的说法，全球森林大火导致了恐龙的生物的灭绝(...that global forest fires... contributed to dinosaur extinction ... )。语法上正确。但是（1）改变原句意思（2）逻辑上说不过去。地球在650万年前不会全是陆地。非常同意应该按题目给出的资料而不是自己的常识来做题，但是能够从题目种的那一点看出应该是全球大火而不是陨星碰撞造成的生物灭绝呢？

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-8 01:50
对不起，这个东西稍长，他不让我一次贴完。

我不知道：关于A of B +Ved,该V+ed修饰A而不是修饰B应该时选B的唯一一个tenable理由.能否请o222斑竹举一个例子,如果是OG里面的更加有说服力。（但是一我看OG的经验，ETS的错误选项一般不会只有一个错误）

作者: tocean0222 时间: 2003-7-8 02:52

以下是引用mzyzhu在2003-7-8 1:50:00的发言：
对不起，这个东西稍长，他不让我一次贴完。

我不知道：关于A of B +Ved,该V+ed修饰A而不是修饰B应该时选B的唯一一个tenable理由.能否请o222斑竹举一个例子,如果是OG里面的更加有说服力。（但是一我看OG的经验，ETS的错误选项一般不会只有一个错误）

Here's an example

OG)196

It is possible that Native Americans originally migrated to the Western Hemisphere over a bridge of land that once existed.

In the black part of this sentence , the key word is the "bridge" before "of",which is modified by the relative clause beginning "that",not the "land" after it.
From the discussion and example above, I have a feel that we must make clear what is really modified by modifiers when analyzing the intended meaning of a sentence.
Commonly,there are 2 or more errors contained in a sentence of gmat SC, but
when choosing a better one between two choices left we can rely on a major error to make the decision.

welcome comments!

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-7-8 2:57:00编辑过]

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-8 21:01
thanks for the example. but it is not very convincing for several reasons.

first, ETS neither explicit nor implicit tells us that that clause is to modify the bridge.

second, from the logic meaning, you may agree either that "a bridge of land" cannot be part or that it is the land not the bridge once exist. we use "bridge of land" to describe the shape of the land, so the kernel of this phrase is "land", in my perspective.

please give some more examples if you have.

作者: tocean0222 时间: 2003-7-9 01:24

以下是引用mzyzhu在2003-7-8 21:01:00的发言：
thanks for the example. but it is not very convincing for several reasons.

first, ETS neither explicit nor implicit tells us that that clause is to modify the bridge.

second, from the logic meaning, you may agree either that "a bridge of land" cannot be part or that it is the land not the bridge once exist. we use "bridge of land" to describe the shape of the land, so the kernel of this phrase is "land", in my perspective.

please give some more examples if you have.

"Between Siberia and Alaska", known as two places which locate in different continents, exlicitly indicates that there was a bridge once existed,so the relative clause is supposed to modify "bridge" rather than "land".And we can also make sure that the central word is not "land".

another example:OG 220

Over a period of a hundred years beginning in 1788, England exiled some 160,000 criminals to Australia.

What do think is modified by beginning..., period or a hundred years?

enjoy!

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-11 01:15
LZM p240 E11-89
Blue-winged warbles are unlike most (species of warble) in that it is …difficult to tell …

tocean0222, what do you think of this one? who is kernel?

作者: tocean0222 时间: 2003-7-11 10:51
the kernel here is definitely "spieces".

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-11 23:34
I wish you are right. but how do you understand this "... warbles are unlike spieces... in that..." in terms of "like or unlike" usage.

作者: tocean0222 时间: 2003-7-11 23:57
hehe, thanks for your wish.It is clear that comparison should be made between the comparble things."Blue-winged warbles " here is just one spieces of warbles, so the phrase can be compared with "most species of warble".

hopt it will make sense!

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-7-12 00:07
thanks.

some more examples will be on the way.

作者: yuyuwang 时间: 2003-10-8 20:29
A 肯定错，根据LZM公理，of 应被that替代

作者: yuyuwang 时间: 2003-10-8 20:34
A 肯定错。根据lzm语法，of应被that替代。

作者: hedgeforfun 时间: 2003-10-16 23:03
完全同意!

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