请教86-OG-1

shawnsea · 发表于 2008-9-9 22:28:00

1. Added to the increase in hourly
wages requested last July, the railroad employees are now seeking an expanded
program of retirement benefits.

(A) Added to the increase in hourly
wages requested last July, the railroad employees are now seeking an expanded
program of retirement benefits.

(B) Added to the increase in hourly
wages which had been requested last July, the employees of the railroad are now
seeking an expanded program of retirement benefits.

(C) The railroad employees are now
seeking an expanded program of retirement

benefits added to the increase in
hourly wages that were requested last July.

(D) In addition to the increase in
hourly wages that were requested last July, the railroad employees are now
seeking an expanded program of retirement benefits.

(E) In addition to the increase in
hourly wages requested last July, the employees of the railroad are now seeking
an expanded program of retirement benefits.

Choice A presents a dangling modifier. The phrase beginning
the sentence can fit nowhere in the sentence and make logical sense. Coming
first, it modifies employees, the nearest free noun in the main clause;
i.e., choice A says that the employees were added to the increase in hourly
wages. Choice B also begins with a dangling modifier; moreover, the simple past
tense requested is needed to place an action before the present action are…seeking.
In choice C, were does not agree in number with the subject of the
clause, increase, and it is not clear whether added to the increase is
supposed to modify program or benefits. Choice D also lacks
agreement (increase…were). Choice E is best for this question of medium
difficulty.

A、B选项由于修饰段Added to。。。不能修饰后面的主语employees，

为什么E选项的修饰语“In addition to...”能够修饰后面的主语employees?

先谢谢了！！！

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-9 22:28:41编辑过]

AlienX · 发表于 2008-9-9 22:37:00

"In addition to"修"an expanded program of retirement benefits"
OG上有一道說in addition to一定要修主句主語, 可是obviously不一定...
Prep上有一道類似的

dustinxing · 发表于 2008-9-9 22:53:00

以下是引用AlienX在2008-9-9 22:37:00的发言：
"In addition to"修"an expanded program of retirement benefits"
OG上有一道說in addition to一定要修主句主語, 可是obviously不一定...
Prep上有一道類似的

in addition to 的用法就是为了避免逻辑主语不一致而用的。你还是回OG确认一下吧，再去理解一下其说的意思。（如果OG解释真的像你那么说的，那看来又要多一有争议的题了）如果找到，请你把OG原文贴上来，让大家一起讨论一下。

shawnsea · 发表于 2008-9-9 23:01:00

如果in addition to要修饰主语，或者是最靠近的名词，那就是修饰employees啊，
这样逻辑上也会有问题。
只有修饰"an expanded program of retirement benefits"才能说得通吧。

dustinxing · 发表于 2008-9-9 23:17:00

以下是引用shawnsea在2008-9-9 23:01:00的发言：
如果in addition to要修饰主语，或者是最靠近的名词，那就是修饰employees啊，
这样逻辑上也会有问题。
只有修饰"an expanded program of retirement benefits"才能说得通吧。

所谓避免主语的意思，就是in addition to的内容的意思是单独的，你不需要去追究其到底修饰主句哪个成分，我认为只是一种伴随。

AlienX · 发表于 2008-9-10 00:23:00

19. In addition to having more protein than
wheat does, the protein in rice is higher quality than that in wheat,
with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.

(A) the
protein in rice is higher quality than that in

(B) rice
has protein of higher quality than that in

(C) the
protein in rice is higher in quality than it is in

(D) rice protein is higher in quality than it is in

(E) rice has a protein higher in quality than

In this sentence, the initial clause modifies the
nearest noun, identifying it as the thing being compared with wheat. By
making protein the noun modified, choices A, C, and D illogically
compare wheat with protein and claim that the protein in
rice has more protein than wheat does. In C and D, the comparative structure higher
in quality than it is in wheat absurdly suggests that rice protein contains
wheat. B, the best choice, logically compares wheat to rice by
placing the noun rice immediately after the initial clause. B also uses that
to refer to protein in making the comparison between the proteins of
rice and wheat. Choice E needs either that in or does after wheat
to make a complete and logical comparison.

AlienX · 发表于 2008-9-10 00:30:00

dustinxing, I sort of agree with what you said.
if you re-read my post, I was trying to say, "although OG10 mentions that 'in addition to' has to modify the nearest noun(the subject in the main clause), OG is wrong".
OG's explanation is not 100% correct but 99% correct?
you can search for "ETS" in this board, and you will find that ETS has admitted 2 mistakes in OG10 explanation.

iamwuyan · 发表于 2008-9-10 07:56:00

基本同意5楼的说法, 这种题目还是排除掉最明显的错误吧

shawnsea · 发表于 2008-9-10 11:10:00

谢谢dustinxing和AlienX两位兄弟。

dustinxing · 发表于 2008-9-10 14:35:00

以下是引用AlienX在2008-9-10 0:30:00的发言：
dustinxing, I sort of agree with what you said.
if you re-read my post, I was trying to say, "although OG10 mentions that 'in addition to' has to modify the nearest noun(the subject in the main clause), OG is wrong".
OG's explanation is not 100% correct but 99% correct?
you can search for "ETS" in this board, and you will find that ETS has admitted 2 mistakes in OG10 explanation.

你给的例子和楼主的例子有个区别在于：

(1)你的例子：in addition to + V.

(2)楼主例子：in addition to + n.

至于in addition to + n. 的情况肯定是不用在意到底修饰主句哪个成分；那么对于你的例子，在prep中曾解释为“in addition to是不需要保持逻辑主语的特例”，我个人认为，既然OG这么说了，那还是按照OG的意思。（我没有记错的话，prep中有一题例外）

请教86-OG-1

请教86-OG-1

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()