[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!!!!
|