GWD21-Q41，未定论的题目

dogshead · 发表于 2009-12-17 15:17:20

41. GWD21-Q41:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to place restrictions on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems.
A. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying

B. on both diesel fuel and engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and they say

C. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, which says

D. both on diesel fuel and engines has sparked the oil industry to a counterattack, saying

E. both on diesel fuel and diesel engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and it says

这题一直未有定论，我感觉say后面的内容作为sparked the oil industry to counterattack结果，这样比较合乎逻辑。

C，把say后面的内容作为非限制性定语从句来处理。抹杀了表示结果的意思。成了oil industry的一个非限制性定语而已，非限制性定语和修饰词之间是非常松散的关系，是可有可无的，但是逻辑上句子还是挺强调这个say 后面的内容的。请NN comments

所以倾向于选A
（别再说什么saying的主语可能是主句的主语或者修饰主句动词的之类的理由，不符合这些规则但是正确的题多了）

cynthia627 · 发表于 2009-12-17 23:46:26

我觉得还是C。这道题不想听那样的理由，可以逻辑着想。虽然我觉得那样的理由其实还是挺正确的。你看，如果是saying，那么一定是整句话的结果。但是这句话是什么？难道能说是因为这个建议怎样怎样，所以saying了个这个？我觉得不是特别通顺。这个的关键点还是industry。鉴于“所以”根本就不通，所以为什么不选择一个没有歧义的which？

sunnyice · 发表于 2010-6-8 15:33:06

如果用saying，那么saying的逻辑主语应该是The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal。逻辑上这样是错误的。

jiangliu · 发表于 2010-6-10 20:24:13

觉得应该是A，因为which这个pronoun到底指的是谁？他也有可能指的是the proposal （which 不一定就指代最近的）。saying在这做的是participle, 后面跟的全是来修饰oil industry.

感觉语法上A和C都不错，但是要是从逻辑上来分析，就不知道gmat强调谁了。如果强调oil industry,那用non-restrict subordinate clause肯定是不行；但要是不强调这点的话，那肯定用which 语法上是最保险的。IMHO.

hermit127 · 发表于 2010-6-10 21:41:03

选择C，但是理由与各位不同，争论的焦点关键在于无论saying还是which says的逻辑主语是什么？

A, Saying 的逻辑主语要么是就近要么是前面主语，无论proposal还是the oil industry都不行，前者逻辑不对，后者是介词的宾语无法充当saying的先行词，此番论述在OG12很多；

C, which says的先行词是a counterattack，所以正确；

jiangliu · 发表于 2010-6-11 09:21:39

glad we can discuss

first of all, i can't find the concept of "*逻辑*主语" in english grammar book, so i can't "argue" with that. Following is an example from a grammar book:

"Our car was repaired by a mechanic, working as quickly as possible."
"Working as quickly as possible, our car was repaired by a mechanic."

They are both correct.

By the definition of participle verb acting as adj or adj phrase, it says:
"Since the listener or reader tends to assume that an interpolated adjectival phrase is meant to modify the nearest noun or pronoun, care must be taken to make sure that such a phrase is positioned close to the noun or pronoun to be modified. A participle that begins an interpolated phrase that is not sufficiently close to the noun or pronoun to be modified is usually referred to as a dangling participle."

So "saying" here modifies the "oil industry", which is also logically makes sense: the proposal will not against itself. If you say "saying" modifies the "proposal", i would consider this as a dangling participle.

Choice C, according to the similar rule that relative pronoun modifies noun or pronoun that close to it, so "which" here modifies oil industry. However, this non-restrictive clause makes the logic weaker that A. IMHO.

Also, would you mind to show me a example of 后者是介词的宾语无法充当saying的先行词，此番论述在OG12很多, probably i need to check what OG says.

(Sorry i can't type chinese at the moment)

hermit127 · 发表于 2010-6-11 10:10:47

Yes, regarding the choice E, I also refered to other discussion here, and I agree that "the oil industry" can "say", we have examples in OG , a company/a report say, but why "a counterattack" can't? Furthermore, you can find the explanation in OG12 SC1, which say that "As the object of a preposition and not the subject of the clause, James Cook does not work as the noun that the verbal phrase beginning with naming can describe;" I wish that is helpful.

林若绮 · 发表于 2010-9-15 16:53:33

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to place restrictions on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems.
A.   on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying
B.   on both diesel fuel and engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and they say
C.   on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, which says
D.   both on diesel fuel and engines has sparked the oil industry to a counterattack, saying
E.   both on diesel fuel and diesel engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and it says
正确的题意应该是：一个proposal对柴油机和柴油的限制激起了原油市场的反击，原油市场认为（say)这个变动将会使能源供应问题更加恶化。（propoasl引起反击，反击的理由是市场为了proposal会使情况恶化）
A. saying 的逻辑主语为proposal，错误
B. which 为非限制性定语从句，就近指代“，”前方名词，此处为“oil industry"， oil industry(which) says 逻辑正确
CDE用both……and……结构平行，排除

akiluk · 发表于 2010-9-29 18:34:58

同意楼上！which 修饰 industry~

BeBrave2011 · 发表于 2010-10-19 12:17:25

C没有任何的模糊的意思。A并不是语法prefer的用法，如下。

从网上查到的，解释了A为什么没有C好：

Participial phrases are short phrases that appear at the beginning of a sentence or the end of the sentence. These participial phrases should always be set off from the main clause with a comma. The action that is occurring in these participial phrases should relate back to the subject.（并不是must，所以有了歧义的根源） That is, the subject of the sentence should be doing the action. If this is not the case, the result is a dangling modifier.

Incorrect: A large twig floated over and jabbed him, swimming against the tide.

Here swimming against the tide is not something that the twig is doing. Twigs don't swim. They float. However, it appears as if swimming against the tide is modifying him (the final pronoun in the main clause). While some grammarians might not find anything objectionable about this practice, generally speaking, participial phrases (both at the end of and in front of the main clause) should refer back to the subject.（并不一定是错误的，但确实不清不楚！）

When a participial phrase is attached to the end of a sentence and it is modifying the last word of the sentence (a noun), it may be acting like a reduced relative clause as well. In this case, refer to the rules for restrictive and non-restrictive clauses for punctuation. （用restrictive or non-restrictive clause解决了这个问题！）

Example: Harold invented his own god, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.

The question here is who is laughing maniacally. Punctuated as it is now, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud is a participial phrase that modifies Harold. However, it could be seen as a reduced relative clause that is modifying god. This relative clause is restrictive because laughing maniacally would specify what kind of god Harold had invented. Therefore, use no comma.

Correct: Harold invented his own god, who was laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.

本贴相关题目 TN-15-SC-41 (CSYO)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

GWD21-Q41，未定论的题目

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()