ChaseDream

标题: OG13-29 Emily Dickinson E选项和A选项差别求解 [打印本页]

作者: whitewoman 时间: 2013-6-22 11:33
标题: OG13-29 Emily Dickinson E选项和A选项差别求解
Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.

(A) Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering

(B) Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ended shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber

(C) Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and that ends shortly before Emily's death in 1886 and outnumbering

(D) Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother, ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, and outnumbering

(E) Dickinson, which were written over a periodbeginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber

请问为何不能使用A选项，OG给的解释有二。第一个解释说了A选项过度强调了写作时间(... gives too much emphasis to the period when Dickinson's letters were written)，而我们应该强调写作数量，故要选E，但是谁说这句子非要强调数量呢，而且不是说转移强调部分，谓语与非谓语对调的选项是错误的吗。
第二个解释为it is unclear what outnumbering refers to. 这种现在分词作修饰逻辑主语不就是主句主语么，所以应该修饰主句letters，为何有歧义呢

请大神们为我解释一下，感谢之至！

作者: atto 时间: 2013-6-22 12:13
同惑，同求解！
從語義上來說真不見得是在強調數量，A、E兩句不同的語法結構直接導致句子的語義中心轉移而且都合理；從語法上來說outnumbering的用法真沒錯。

作者: 云游 时间: 2013-6-22 12:17
关于V-ing的用法，有一个帖子，楼主请看一下，我觉得挺好。http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-764753-1-1.html
outnumbering如此处表结果，修饰前面的主句，逻辑上不连贯。
Outnumbering如表示伴随，逻辑主语和主句主语要相似，如果修饰emily dickinson's letters的话，两者相聚是在太远....不符合modification的原则
Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington, outnumbering her letters to anyone else, were written....这样的话我感觉还可以

作者: laihong 时间: 2013-6-22 13:37
换一个角度来看， outnumber 比较的同类的people or things ，所以这里letters之间比较才对

作者: whitewoman 时间: 2013-6-27 13:43

云游发表于 2013-6-22 12:17
关于V-ing的用法，有一个帖子，楼主请看一下，我觉得挺好。http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-764753-1-1 ...

也就是说如果outnumbering放句首，这句话就是correct的对吗

作者: 云游 时间: 2013-6-27 16:12

whitewoman 发表于 2013-6-27 13:43
也就是说如果outnumbering放句首，这句话就是correct的对吗

个人觉得这样应该就没有问题了，对于modifier而言，结构上需要尽可能的靠近其modify的对象~不然会出现像A选项中的问题，outnumbering要结构上与其说是修饰letters，更像是修饰之前的整个句子的结果状语...

作者: whitewoman 时间: 2013-6-27 17:25

云游发表于 2013-6-27 16:12
个人觉得这样应该就没有问题了，对于modifier而言，结构上需要尽可能的靠近其modify的对象~不然会出现像A ...

唔，我也知道这个修饰要尽量靠近被修饰成分。但是实际做题的时候还真难考虑到这么多，首先判断的肯定是正确性问题。E选项改变了谓语的动词，移走了重心，赶脚也不是特靠谱

作者: 云游 时间: 2013-6-28 17:10

whitewoman 发表于 2013-6-27 17:25
唔，我也知道这个修饰要尽量靠近被修饰成分。但是实际做题的时候还真难考虑到这么多，首先判断的肯定是正 ...

嗯，其实我觉得，对于我们non-native speaker来说，真得很难做到像baby姐或者很多版主说得那种通过语义选出正确答案~做题要有步骤，通过明显错误排除下来剩下两三个选项的时候，要通过细微的语义语法来排除，细微的语义语法错误排除到最后还有不确定的，就要看什么wordy和concise了。
而且我觉得一开始做题的时候正确率要比效率重要，正确率保证了，语法点都贯通了，再考虑提速练pace。

作者: enkyklios 时间: 2013-6-28 19:53
我的理解是这样的，一般来讲我们说分词在句尾是表伴随或者结果。
在这里我们先看伴随，Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written ，我们把分词还原成从句，when letters outnumber ……。这个句子并不合常理，
作为结果写给……的信,在……期间，被完成，这超过了……。还是不合理。
我有一个贴子和这个分词作状语有关，如果你感兴趣可以看一下。
http://forum.chasedream.com/foru ... &fromuid=809886

作者: 不辣的皮特 时间: 2013-9-20 22:55
贴下ron的解释：this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are tw completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.

examples:
my brother, who ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduated in 1994. --> correct; his eating bagel bites had no impact on his graduation date.
my brother ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduating in 1994. --> incorrect; these are two unrelated observations, but this construction erroneously implies some sort of relationship.

我觉得这题从语法上去解释确实太牵强

作者: DeliciaAn 时间: 2015-3-21 14:20
赞下10楼

作者: 1ting 时间: 2016-9-28 14:39
我有个疑问，为什么OA用的是outnumber而不是outnumbered呢？这个也不能说是一般公理啊。。。

作者: 锕儍 时间: 2016-11-18 15:44
我自己对排除A选项的理解

首先我们把中间那部分modifier去掉

Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.
可以看出来，outnumbering也是一个modifier，verb-ing一般修饰的是一整个动作
修饰这个句子的话，我们看看这个句子什么意思。
“ED给SHD的信都写于某个时期，比给任何别人的都多。” 前面重点强调时期，后面的修饰语却在说收信人，句意在一定程度上跑偏了。

而E选项则不存在这个问题，因为period的部分是在一个定语从句里表述了，不影响主句的信息。
欢迎指正

作者: 锕儍 时间: 2016-11-18 15:47

1ting 发表于 2016-9-28 14:39
我有个疑问，为什么OA用的是outnumber而不是outnumbered呢？这个也不能说是一般公理啊。。。 ...

不一定是公理定理，只要是现在还客观成立的事实即可。
Ron有个例句
In 1987, Smith first observed that Cuyahoga River is full of pollution.
如果这条河现在还受污染的话，这个句子时态就是对的。
如果没有污染了，则需用was

作者: kobebryantioy 时间: 2016-12-3 22:47
谁能解决一下我的疑问。
我觉得E是错的。
因为曼哈顿书上说A NOUN and its MODIFIER should TOUCH each other.
然后举了个例子
Wrong: Jim biked along an old dirt road to get to his house, which cut through
the woods.
In the preceding example, the modifying phrase which cut through the woods is meant to describe the
road, not the house. Thus, you should move the modifier next to road.
Right: To get to his house, Jim biked along an old dirt road, which cut through
the woods.

这不是正和E错的一样吗？因为which 修饰的是letters啊，而不是Susan Hutington Dickinson啊

作者: 御寒 时间: 2016-12-13 11:35

kobebryantioy 发表于 2016-12-3 22:47
谁能解决一下我的疑问。
我觉得E是错的。
因为曼哈顿书上说A NOUN and its MODIFIER should TOUCH each oth ...

你的意思是E选项which指的是Dickinson吗？如果我没理解错你的意思的话：此处which是正确指代letters的，因为Dickinson是人，代词只可以用who

作者: 闭眼看书 时间: 2017-2-18 11:49

kobebryantioy 发表于 2016-12-3 22:47
谁能解决一下我的疑问。
我觉得E是错的。
因为曼哈顿书上说A NOUN and its MODIFIER should TOUCH each oth ...

which在GMAT中原则上是就近指代最近的名词，但是只能指代物，指代人只能用who/whose/whom,如果which前面没有出现物体名词而仅有人名的话就是指代错误

作者: 闭眼看书 时间: 2017-2-28 18:09

kobebryantioy 发表于 2016-12-3 22:47
谁能解决一下我的疑问。
我觉得E是错的。
因为曼哈顿书上说A NOUN and its MODIFIER should TOUCH each oth ...

根据RON说的，“which”在GMAT中有两种用法：
（1）modify the noun immediately preceding the comma
(2)modify the noun+prep phrase immediately preceding the comma.
所以E选项中which其实修饰的是letters to SHD

作者: stephaniehuang 时间: 2017-5-6 09:31

闭眼看书发表于 2017-2-28 18:09
根据RON说的，“which”在GMAT中有两种用法：
（1）modify the noun immediately preceding the comma
(2 ...

恩，明白了

作者: liu兔兔爱大白 时间: 2017-6-28 17:54

不辣的皮特发表于 2013-9-20 22:55
贴下ron的解释：this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in a ...

同意！

作者: camdd 时间: 2017-7-24 17:15
if you have "X of Y, which..."
then:
* if Y works as the antecedent of "which", then "which" should stand for Y.
* if Y doesn't work as the antecedent, but "X of Y" DOES work, then "which" can stand for "X of Y".

作者: 考拉飞起 时间: 2017-9-28 23:27

云游发表于 2013-6-22 12:17
关于V-ing的用法，有一个帖子，楼主请看一下，我觉得挺好。http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-764753-1-1 ...

当前面是主系表De时候，Ving是解释说明的意思

作者: triway 时间: 2017-10-15 11:57
RON对A选项的解释如下,主要还是说写信和outnumber这两个行为互相独立，所以不能用outnumbering引出上文的直接or间接结果。不能作伴随前面有人提过了。
this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are two completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.

examples:
my brother, who ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduated in 1994. --> correct; his eating bagel bites had no impact on his graduation date.
my brother ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduating in 1994. --> incorrect; these are two unrelated observations, but this construction erroneously implies some sort of relationship.

作者: 招拆猫猫拳 时间: 2018-5-17 14:54
这难道不是简单的图形背景法则吗
这题要表达的图形是OUTNUMBER 而写信超越了数量那个只是背景

作者: 好大一只BAOBAO 时间: 2018-11-7 20:58
想请问一下B选项 Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily’s brother and ended shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber中，这个逗号直接跟 outnumber 是不是也是错误的呀，类似于两个句子直接用逗号连接的那种错误，OG解释中没有提到这一点，想知道如果错误了具体是哪儿种错误~请大神指教~

作者: 小猫Mandy 时间: 2019-4-4 13:31

锕儍发表于 2016-11-18 15:44
我自己对排除A选项的理解

首先我们把中间那部分modifier去掉

这个解释很赞，看完很清晰，谢谢，顶一下

作者: 蛋卷酱 时间: 2019-11-1 14:35
Mark一下！

作者: 胖胖gmat 时间: 2020-7-20 10:39

不辣的皮特发表于 2013-9-20 22:55
贴下ron的解释：this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in a ...

同意！

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