ChaseDream

标题: 求解OG13SC-41的相关问题（未被讨论的点） [打印本页]

作者: lancyyao18 时间: 2014-5-26 22:34
标题: 求解OG13SC-41的相关问题（未被讨论的点）

[size=13.63636302947998px]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.

[size=13.63636302947998px](A) arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights

[size=13.63636302947998px](B) arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women

[size=13.63636302947998px](C) a treatise that advocates women's equal political and legal rights

[size=13.63636302947998px](D) a treatise advocating women's equal political and legal rights

[size=13.63636302947998px](E) a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women

[size=13.63636302947998px]OG解释：
[size=13.63636302947998px]Parallelism;  Rhetorical construction
Mott s Discourse was a treatise, and it is redundant and confusing to present her as both publishing her Discourse and arguing in a treatise, as though they were two separate things. The verb arguing must be followed by a prepositional phrase beginning with for, but the verb advocating simply takes a direct object.

A After published her Discourse ... arguing in a treatise is wordy and imprecise.
B Arguing in a treatise is redundant and awkward.
C The verb advocates does not work idiomatically with the prepositional phrase for changes
D The verbal advocating does not work idiomatically with the prepositional phrase for changes
E Correct. The title of Mott's publication is followed by a phrase describing the treatise, and argued is followed by for.

[size=13.63636302947998px]我想问下，1.关于E项的 for woman 和 for changes  会不会可能平行造成歧义？
[size=13.63636302947998px]             2. 只单独考虑这样一个句子： a treatise argued for equal political and legal rights for women。这句的意思是指的equal political for woman and legal right for women 还是仅仅是 legal right for woman, 判断的标准是什么呢？非常谢谢！！！！

作者: lancyyao18 时间: 2014-5-27 16:18
各位大神，求解啊！！！！！！！

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2014-5-27 16:50
1.关于E项的 for woman 和 for changes 会不会可能平行造成歧义？
答：平行不仅要“形式上”平行，作用和意思上也要平行。E选项argued for...and for...这才是平行。而for equal political and legal rights for women中for women是介词短语做定语修饰 rights的，怎么可能跟for changes去平行呢？即使退一万步，不考虑逻辑意思说不说的通，即使for women真的和changes平行，也应该是for equal political and legal rights for women and changes...changes前面的for完全多余啊！作者补出这个介词for就是为了提示这个for changes是与argued for equal political and legal rights平行的,否则changes前的for应该省略。

2.答：这句的意思是指的equal political righr for woman and equal legal right for women。
从第一个问题就发现你太纠结“形式”，而忽略了形式只是句子的排列顺序，其目的是为了表达逻辑意思。
这里equal和for women都是公用的。

作者: lancyyao18 时间: 2014-5-29 09:00

alzn2765 发表于 2014-5-27 16:50
1.关于E项的 for woman 和 for changes 会不会可能平行造成歧义？
答：平行不仅要“形式上”平行，作用和 ...

恩恩，明白了，我是太注重句子的形式了，忽略了逻辑意思。感谢！！！

作者: lululuna 时间: 2015-4-2 10:17
感谢分享！

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