ChaseDream

标题: [求助]gwd-1-41 急，快考试了，大家帮帮忙 [打印本页]
作者: leslie123456789    时间: 2004-11-21 07:22
标题: [求助]gwd-1-41 急，快考试了，大家帮帮忙

Q41:


Leaching, the recovery of copper from the drainage water of mines, as a method of the extraction of minerals, it was well established as early as the eighteenth century, but until about 25 years ago miners did not realize that bacteria take an active part in the process.






  1. as a method of the extraction of minerals, it was well established
  2. as a method of the extraction of minerals well established
  3. was a well-established method of mineral extraction
  4. was a well-established method of extracting mineral that was
  5. had been a method of mineral extraction, well established

答案是C，但我觉得E对阿，早在18世纪。。。25年前（过去时）=〉前半部分用过去完成时

作者: fbfamous    时间: 2004-11-21 07:39
E还有别的错误啊：ESTABLISHED你想当分词定语用么？那它应该紧跟名词LEACHING，如果你想让它做谓语，就少了BE。
作者: fbfamous    时间: 2004-11-21 07:55

A，it  多余了，两个主语了。（还一个leaching)


B,  逻辑错了。那个established本来应该修饰leaching,现在修饰extraction了


C，..........


D，extracting mineral 这个也意思变了。还有就是that be简单系表结构罗嗦。


E，established做定语位置错。做谓语没be且双谓语了。时态错：我觉得看时态要联系句子逻辑关系。不能只看有两个时间对比就用完成时态。你看啊，前面说的是LEACHING是个...的方法。后面的时间说的是：miner没意识到.....你看主语就知道他们逻辑上不是一个东西啊。我的意思是说，如果你要用完成时态，那就是在两个前后时间段比同样一个东西。而这个题里不是说的一个东西。所以不用完成时态。就好象两个发生在过去的没有直接关系的东西，虽然时间上是不同，那难道就不能用过去时么？？


呵呵，一点想法，我不是牛。只是参与讨论！还要期待NN来解答吧


最后祝你杀G成功


[此贴子已经被作者于2004-11-21 7:56:26编辑过]
作者: ogram    时间: 2005-7-21 19:55

我认为as early as the eighteenth century是一个副词性短语，只能修饰动词establish,不能修饰名词method，所以倾向于E


C的表达虽然简洁，但as early as the eighteenth century紧跟在method of mineral extraction 后面，变成as early as the eighteenth century在修饰method了，不合适，除非as early as the eighteenth century这个短语可以当作形容词来用

作者: gigiga0118    时间: 2005-8-13 14:03

Leaching, the recovery of copper from the drainage water of mines, as a method of the extraction of minerals, it was well established as early as the eighteenth century, but until about 25 years ago miners did not realize that bacteria take an active part in the process.






  1. as a method of the extraction of minerals, it was well established

  2. as a method of the extraction of minerals well established

  3. was a well-established method of mineral extraction

  4. was a well-established method of extracting mineral that was

  5. had been a method of mineral extraction, well established

這題我再問


A/B兩個選項



除了A的it


B的句子結構


出現問題外


1.那個as....有沒有問題????


2.遇到這樣的結構


我可以理解成同位嗎??



比方說as a method of the extraction of minerals, it was well established


是拿來修飾leaching的.....



作者: findjuhl    时间: 2006-9-8 19:40
以下是引用fbfamous在2004-11-21 7:39:00的发言：
E还有别的错误啊：ESTABLISHED你想当分词定语用么？那它应该紧跟名词LEACHING，如果你想让它做谓语，就少了BE。

有很多分词定语的短句修饰主语的后置或者前置，都按你说的紧跟名词了？

作者: gonghao    时间: 2006-9-8 23:32

A/B没谓语

E，well established做什么成分？修饰得话，有修饰对象得歧异，做动词缺少一个be。问题在于一个逗号，使其成分作用不清

作者: 足球幽灵    时间: 2006-9-20 19:49
E,过去完成时表示动作发生在过去的过去,但是它同时表示动作完成在过去的过去.举个例子:he had done the work at the 6:00.表示动作是在六点做完的;he did the work at 6:00.表示做这个工作是在六点,没有完成的含义(摘自章语法).从这道题来看,这个方法在18世纪就产生了,并且一直有,用完成时明显不符合逻辑,错.还可参照11thOG 86
作者: whiteshadow    时间: 2007-11-24 13:36
以下是引用fbfamous在2004-11-21 7:55:00的发言：

A，it  多余了，两个主语了。（还一个leaching)

B,  逻辑错了。那个established本来应该修饰leaching,现在修饰extraction了

C，..........

D，extracting mineral 这个也意思变了。还有就是that be简单系表结构罗嗦。

E，established做定语位置错。做谓语没be且双谓语了。时态错：我觉得看时态要联系句子逻辑关系。不能只看有两个时间对比就用完成时态。你看啊，前面说的是LEACHING是个...的方法。后面的时间说的是：miner没意识到.....你看主语就知道他们逻辑上不是一个东西啊。我的意思是说，如果你要用完成时态，那就是在两个前后时间段比同样一个东西。而这个题里不是说的一个东西。所以不用完成时态。就好象两个发生在过去的没有直接关系的东西，虽然时间上是不同，那难道就不能用过去时么？？

呵呵，一点想法，我不是牛。只是参与讨论！还要期待NN来解答吧

最后祝你杀G成功


  我想C中怎么改变意思了啊？请指教，急噢！！！

作者: 大橘子    时间: 2017-7-19 16:00
e选项中well established不能是伴随做状语吗？
作者: fxxxfxxx    时间: 2017-7-19 16:36
大橘子 发表于 2017-7-19 16:00
e选项中well established不能是伴随做状语吗？

不能，这里well established只能是修饰mineral extraction
作者: watercjf    时间: 2017-8-6 11:59
大橘子 发表于 2017-7-19 16:00
e选项中well established不能是伴随做状语吗？

Ron对E选项的解释，参考一下~

inappropriate tense.
if the past perfect is used to describe a state or description of something (as opposed to an action verb), it should generally be used to describe a state/description that is no longer the case. since leaching is presumably still an extraction method (this is not the sort of thing that is subject to change), the past perfect is inappropriate.

also, the modifier (starting with "well established") shouldn't be a nonessential modifier, i.e., it shouldn't be set off by commas.
this isn't generally a difference that's tested, so i'll defer the explanation to the following thread, on which i wrote about it: post45536.html#p45536
after you read that part, you should better understand why the nonessential modifier doesn't work here.
作者: 萨维学姐    时间: 2017-9-9 11:13
说一下自己对E的理解。首先，如果把well established看作是一个modifier，那么就存在Ron说的应该是essential modifier，不能加逗号的问题。这里修饰的应该是method。但是如果没有逗号，这个修饰应不应该紧跟method？在extraction后会不会有歧义？这一点存疑，求大神解答。

其次，如果把well established 看作逻辑主语结构，那么后面的as early as···修饰的成分就变了，变成了修饰 established。但根据题意应该是修饰 was a method (had been a method.

当然，同意E最大的问题在于时态。

以上，求指正~谢谢
作者: AMBER513    时间: 2019-9-10 16:42
看一下！               
作者: AMBER513    时间: 2019-9-13 17:09
established修饰的对象错了，另外past perfect感觉在这里用起来很怪异，有一种先于established的感觉



欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3