ChaseDream

标题: 关于法律法规涉及到的时态问题（OG12-74） [打印本页]

作者: greensherry 时间: 2014-11-16 11:18
标题: 关于法律法规涉及到的时态问题（OG12-74）
74. A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates
that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

这道题中1972年的agreement为什么可以确定一定用reduced过去式，如果用reduce不是也可以理解成这条法律还在沿用么？用过去式难道不会产生这条法律现在已经不在使用的感觉么？
正确答案是D选项，此处定语从句用的是一般现在时...不用和前面时态保持一致么？
我知道其他选项都有问题，所以D选项最好，但是想通过这道题彻底弄明白一下这一类的时态问题~希望有人能解答啊，感激不尽><~

作者: celine140 时间: 2014-11-16 15:03
这题我的理解是, reduced 是用来陈述一个过去发生的事实，用一般过去时， that 从句是解释这个agreement的内容的所以是一个法律条款，用一般现在时

作者: zingshaw 时间: 2014-11-16 17:05
源自Ron 大神。
The use of the past perfect “had been allowed” creates an illogical meaning – you can’t reduce something that already took place in the past. From the point in time at which the agreement was made, future dumping was reduced; you can’t reduce the amount that was already dumped before the agreement was made. B repeats this illogical meaning.

作者: greensherry 时间: 2014-11-17 12:28

celine140 发表于 2014-11-16 15:03
这题我的理解是, reduced 是用来陈述一个过去发生的事实，用一般过去时， that 从句是解释这个agreement的 ...

嗯我也是这么理解哒，但记得之前好像也做到过法律题，当时貌似谓语用的一般现在时。。所以就不懂是不是一般过去式和一般现在时都可以呢。。。

作者: greensherry 时间: 2014-11-17 12:30

zingshaw 发表于 2014-11-16 17:05
源自Ron 大神。
The use of the past perfect “had been allowed” creates an illogical meaning – you ...

嗯我知道不能用过去完成时，其实对这道题的答案可以理解啊。。只是想弄清楚前面reduce到底该用什么时态的问题。。还是谢谢啦

作者: onlyspirit 时间: 2014-11-19 11:16

greensherry 发表于 2014-11-17 12:30
嗯我知道不能用过去完成时，其实对这道题的答案可以理解啊。。只是想弄清楚前面reduce到底该用什么时态的 ...

1972的规定，所以是过去时。

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