- UID
- 1359204
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2018-8-30
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
RON神的解释:
in choice d, you could legitimately make a case that 'spending' could modify the entire huge clause about what insurance plans do, and is therefore ambiguous. however, that's the OA, so you've learned that this problem is ok in the eyes of the gmat people. if there's a rule that can be articulated here, it's probably something along the lines of 'participial modifier applies to nearest action'.
简而言之:v-ing可以修饰doctor也可以修饰整个句子,但从逻辑上判断是修饰doctor。这种ambiguity在GMAT不是deal breaker~
链接:https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/among-lower-paid-workers-union-members-are-less-likely-t1904.html |
|