标题: 确认个问题： 能说a treatise argue for 吗？ 不是都是人argue for 吗 [打印本页] 作者: zcstc007 时间: 2012-12-17 17:31 标题: 确认个问题： 能说a treatise argue for 吗？ 不是都是人argue for 吗 In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women's property laws.
A.arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights B.arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women C.a treatise that advocates women's equal political and legal rights D.a treatise advocating women's equal political and legal rights E.a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women
话说B重OG的解释arguing in a trease is redundant and awkward是不是告诉我看到argue后面跟了个在哪个地方，文摘之类的上面argue就是redundant啊作者: TerraceHo 时间: 2012-12-18 12:42
1、語法上arguing修飾的是lm publish這個動作，在A項lm也是argue的doer；a treatise argue for也是對的。 所以對於原句意思把握的時候，如果A項本身就是錯的，後面就要靠自己理解了。我覺得兩種理解都可以。 2、redundant是因為前面dow就是treatise。作者: jesseyinzi 时间: 2012-12-21 14:30
我认为 B中的treatise如果指Discourse on Women，就显得多余。如果不指Discourse on Women，前后两句的逻辑就不严密，后半句凭空出来一个treatise