ChaseDream
搜索
123下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 13179|回复: 29
打印 上一主题 下一主题

OG 128

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2003-11-23 10:43:00 | 只看该作者

OG 128

128. New hardy varieties of rice show promise of pro­ducing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.
requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties
requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation
requirements for application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties
application of commercial fertilizer and irriga­tion that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties
irrigation and application of commercial fertil­izer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties
Choice E, the best answer, clearly and grammatically expresses the idea that two costly procedures, irrigation and the applica­tion of... fertilizer, were required by earlier high-yielding varieties of rice. In A, the placement of by earlier... varieties immediately after application of fertilizer suggests that the varieties applied the fertilizer. In B and D, the phrase applica­tion of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations. In C, only irrigation--not both irrigation and fertilization--is clearly associated with the earlier... varieties of rice.

D, the phrase applica­tion of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations。

这题是考跳跃修饰。可是我觉得D也是修饰明确啊。为什么OG的解释是什么意思? was 的主语是application,application有两样东西:一是commercial fertilizer ,二是irriga­tion。这就说得蛮清楚的啊?

谢谢。

沙发
发表于 2003-11-23 22:56:00 | 只看该作者
答案d中从句中用was,使得从句在语法上可能只修饰irragation,而非原意中要修饰的application, 造成歧义。
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2003-11-26 12:16:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用bigcamel在2003-11-23 22:56:00的发言:
答案d中从句中用was,使得从句在语法上可能只修饰irragation,而非原意中要修饰的application, 造成歧义。


A of B,后面的动作可说明A也可说明B,这题中WAS用来说明application,不行吗?谢谢。
地板
发表于 2003-11-26 12:35:00 | 只看该作者
这里的was即可以被理解为修饰application,又可以理解为修饰irragation,造成歧义,所以不好
5#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-11-26 14:53:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用bigcamel在2003-11-26 12:35:00的发言:
这里的was即可以被理解为修饰application,又可以理解为修饰irragation,造成歧义,所以不好


天啊,是因为这个原因吗?这一题我一直没明白。拖到现在,成了老大难了。
6#
发表于 2003-12-25 02:32:00 | 只看该作者
首先佩服joywzy JJ的认真态度
刚才在论坛里搜到了 Joywzy JJ早在四月分的发贴询问 128的情况
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&replyID=11510&ID=2284&skin=1
再加上这个帖子上 GGJJ们的讨论
我想说说自己对这道题的看法

还是先从OG的解释下手
D, the phrase applica­tion of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations。

在读了GGJJ门辛苦的总结和分析后才感觉到(如果有错误希望GGJJ指点)
Ambiguous一词就可选出B.D.E中的最优了
B(Ambiguous)
requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation
...V of A of C and I
可以解释为 A 和 I 并列 既申请和灌溉并列 就是OG说的两个过程
也可以解释为 of 后面的 C 和 I 并列共同做定语短语修饰 A 只有一个申请,一个过程.申请中又有C和I两个部分.
这也就是 OG 说的:
it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations.

D(Ambiguous) 在A of C and I that was...中
that 可以指代A,同时在没有语法错误的情况下也可以指代I,因为着两个都是单数名词.
这样也产生了一个过程 或者两个过程的 Ambiguous.

E(Cear) I and A of C that were ....
因为I and A of C本身不存在歧义 I和A并列,所以由were可明确的看出that指代的是 I and A.

若有错误希望GGJJ 指出错误thx..



[此贴子已经被作者于2003-12-25 2:34:19编辑过]
7#
发表于 2004-4-28 13:46:00 | 只看该作者

In answer E

Why "I and A of C that were" = "I and (A of C) that were" but not "(I and A) of C that were"

8#
发表于 2004-4-28 13:46:00 | 只看该作者

In answer E

Why "I and A of C that were" = "I and (A of C) that were" but not "(I and A) of C that were"

9#
发表于 2004-4-30 06:54:00 | 只看该作者

since OG says it cannot be clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations ,


we know it should be I and (A of Cf)


If it is the type of " (I and A) of C that ", that will refer to  CF, was should be used in here, because CF is single noun.


that指代CF,若指代I and A 意思不通.不大清楚, 在OG里, that一般是两者都可以指代的吗? 有优先级吗?一般指代C的情况是不是多一些?请指教!


[此贴子已经被作者于2004-4-30 8:37:37编辑过]
10#
发表于 2004-6-7 08:41:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用cmtn在2004-4-28 13:46:00的发言:

In answer E


Why "I and A of C that were" = "I and (A of C) that were" but not "(I and A) of C that were"



我也觉得有你说的这样的问题,但是不从语法,从意思上讲,I of C意思不通啊。请哪位NN再解释详细一点?
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-2-21 21:12
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部