1. The Wallerstein study indicates that even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce occurring when a child.
(A) occurring when a child
(B) occurring when children
(C) that occurred when a child
(D) that occurred when they were children
(E) that has occurred as each was a child
Choice D is best. The phrasing a divorce that occurred when they were children correctly uses the relative clause that occurred to modify a divorce and includes a pronoun and verb (they were) that refer unambiguously to their antecedent, men and women. Choice A incorrectly introduces the when... phrase with occurring, thus illogically making divorce the grammatical referent of when a child; furthermore, the singular child does not agree with the plural men and women. B replaces child with children but otherwise fails to correct A's errors of structure and logic, and C corrects only the error created by occurring. Choice E includes an incorrect verb tense (has occurred) and wrongly replaces when with as. Also, each was does not properly refer to men and women.
and C corrects only the error created by occurring. ,请教occurring犯了什么错？是不是说如果选项写成occurring when they were children一样是错的？
请nn指点！
bebrave mm,
强烈推荐先参考GMAT大区各版块的置顶贴，好东东多多！相信它们可以解决你大部分问题。
本语法区置顶贴有：
如果阅读完上述相关内容仍未能解决你的问题，欢迎发帖继续讨论。发帖一定要注意“版规”里的要求哦。谢谢！
祝你复习过程顺利、愉快！
我搜索过了，没找到。
菜鸟手册里有注解：
that定语从句和分词的区别：分词相当于非限定定语从句，而限定定语从句和非限定定语从句的区别是局部和范围的区别，所表达的意思有很大的差异。
但我还是不太明白， 因为我分词相当于非限定定语从句好像说得太绝对了，而我在语法书里看到对限定非限定的区别是：
Restrictive elements are never set off with punctuation.
Nonrestrictive elements are always set off with punctuation.
如果这样的话，occurring的错就不是菜鸟手册上的原因。。。还是请NN指点一下吧！
mm，你对限定性修饰与非限定性修饰的理解是对的。
| 现在分词： | 作定语时强调动作的多次性、重复性和客观性、强调动作 | OG102/113 |
| 如政府的发令 directive, sentence doing 有强制性 | OG222 | |
| 定语从句： | 强调动作的一次性、具体时间、具体行为、强调状态 | OG96 |
p200002，是呀，
做题，查书，搞来搞去，我常常糊涂掉！
我正烦恼呢，半天才看了5题，我是不是世界上最慢的人？
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |