请问大全261

261       During the 1980s it became clear that soliciting 恳求 private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid than to go to state or federal agencies.

(A) that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid

(B) that for environmentalists who sought financial aid, it was far more efficient to solicit private funds

(C) that for environmentalists seeking financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient to go to

(D) for environmentalists seeking financial aid, going to private organizations was far more efficient（c）

(E) for environmentalists who sought financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient

b是对的,这里to solict private fund与to go to state形成比较,如果排除b,其他选项的错误更明显没的选了

抱歉, 没看清题目. it was far more efficient (for environmentalists) to solicit private funds than to go to state (to solicit funds) 我想可能这里省略了.

C的错误应该是在than后面的to go to的指代有问题. 一种感觉是private organizations were far more efficient to go to than (private organization) to go to state...

c的错误是逻辑意思表达不清,句子意思是说环境保护者向私人恳请资助比向state恳请资助要更有效率

不过我的问题还是没解决请问c的分词与b的从句修饰到底有和区别

请参考一下OG258. 里面有讲到分词和定语的区别.

258. The British sociologist and activist Barbara Wootton once noted as a humorous example of income maldistribution that the elephant that gave rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo was earning annually exactly what she then earned as director of adult education for London.

(A)  that the elephant that gave rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo was earning

(B)  that the elephant, giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo, had been earning

(C)  that there was an elephant giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo, and it earned

(D)  the elephant that gave rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo and was earning

(E)   the elephant giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo and that it earned

that 引导的整个名词从句(整体上是个名词) as a humorous example of income maldistribution.

Choice A, the best answer, uses the idiomatic construction noted... that and clearly focuses on the salient information-- a comparison of annual earnings. In B, the structure of noted... that the elephant, giving rides ..., had been earning falsely implies that the reader already knows about the elephant--that is, that the existence of this particular elephant is not new information. Also, the past perfect had been improperly places the elephant's earning in the past, prior to Wootton's; consistent verb tense is needed to show that the actions are simultaneous. Choice C may be faulted for distortion of meaning and diminished clarity because it suggests that the point of Wootton's example was the elephant's very existence （句子意思改变了）; comparative earnings are presented (after and) as incidental detail（重要的部分变成了附属点）Choice D is awkward and inexact; the whole circum­stance that Wootton "noted" is best expressed in a clause that begins with that(时态也不对) . Choice E does not use the idiomatic construction noted that x; therefore, and that it earned has no parallel construction to which it can be joined.

本题中限定性定于(that)从句是必要的，限制说明这个大象，就像解释中的一样，给了读者一个新的信息；非限定定语(+ing)是一个现象，并不是指那只大象，同时要注意时态的呼应！！！！(整体与局部，新旧之分)

note

To make mention of; remark:

说起…；谈到：

noted the lateness of their arrival.

谈到他们的迟到的事

回到本到题, 我觉得解题的关键不在这里.

谢谢lilyzy的回答

我刚刚又把og258好好炒了一遍,明白了分词和定从修饰的区别

不过回到本题确实解题的关键还在逻辑意思上