- UID
- 725530
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-21
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear. C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past. D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear. E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. 普遍对于A的提问:* "heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action" is awkward and difficult to read. (you may have to be a native speaker to pick up on this, though)可理解成被动冗杂。 much more importantly: * makes it likely to miss... this doesn't work. technically, this would mean that "it" - an unspecified entity - is likely to miss the signs. if you use the "it is ADJ..." construction, and the verb has a specific subject, you MUST include that subject in the construction. it is likely that the executive will miss... makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble 中it不可以作为placeholder吗? 解答:To streamline: Commitment makes it likely to miss signs of trouble. But to miss signs of trouble doesn't make sense as a subject here. You can see this by putting that infinitive in the subject spot: To miss signs of trouble...what?...is likely? But that's not what the original sentence means. And to miss signs of trouble doesn't work as an object either. What would you need to make it an object? Well, you would need for someone to be likely to miss signs. The following sentence is awkward, but grammatically defensible: Commitment makes it likely for an executive to miss signs of trouble. Much more important, because more accessible by the good test-taker, in the whole sentence C,
Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
the second it would be assumed to have the same antecedent as the first it, namely executive. B中哪里错误? once that modifier is eliminated, notice that you have a sentence that says that the executive him/herself makes missing the signs likely. B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action ... makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear. "misinterpreting ones" is also wrong. this should be "them", not "ones". c中it为什么会指代不清? Everything is fine until we get to "especially if it has worked in the past." The way it is phrases, we can't tell for sure what has worked in the past. Is that referring to a course of action or misintepretation of signs of incipient trouble? If C is to be correct it should say,
"An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked in the past, is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear."也就是it和其指代的名词离太远,或者可以记成it不可以越过谓语指代。 E中being怎么会正确?什么情况下是正确的? 1,you're actually asking the wrong question; the question you should be asking is when you should eliminate "being". the answer to that question is, ROUGHLY, that you should avoid "being" when expressing the IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTICS of some individual or thing. this is because "being" is usually unnecessary in such cases; there are simpler modifiers (such as appositives) that, while absolutely impossible to use in spoken language, are better in written language. if "being" expresses IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTICS, then kill it. otherwise, evaluate it on the same merits as you would any other verb., 2,in this case, "being" isn't a modifier; it's a gerund (= NOUN type -ing form). in fact, "being committed" is the subject of this sentence!
i.e., here "being heavily committed" is like Swimming is fun. that's a complete sentence -- "swimming" is a noun (gerund). since it's a noun, it's not modifying anything.
in fact, i don't think you're EVER going to see "being X" as a modifier, because, in any such case, you could simply eliminate "being" to produce a more concise sentence. i.e., Being tired from the party, I fell asleep in less than one minute --> not ok Tired from the party, I fell asleep in less than one minute --> ok E中one that不会redundant吗? you have "a course of action, especially X" therefore X must be something that's parallel to "a course of action" i.e., it must be a NOUN/PRONOUN, and it must represent a course of action.
here, "one" stands for "a course of action", so that's good.
if you remove "one", that parallelism is destroyed and you are left with a sentence that doesn't make sense.
|
|