再问：og227

227. Judicial rules in many states require that the identities of all prosecution witnesses are made known to defendants so they can attempt to rebut the testi-mony, but the Constitution explicitly requires only that the defendant have the opportunity to confront an accuser in court.
(A) that the identities of all prosecution witnesses are made known to defendants so they can attempt to rebut
(B) that the identities of all prosecution witnesses be made known to defendants so that they can attempt to rebut
(C) that the defendants should know the identities of all prosecution witnesses so they can attempt a rebuttal of
(D) the identities of all prosecution witnesses should be made known to defendants so they can attempt rebutting
(E) making known to defendants the identities of all prosecution witnesses so that they can attempt to rebut

OG解释：In English the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or requirement that a certain course of action be taken. Such phrasing takes the form to wish [or] require that x be y, not that x should be y or that x is y. Choice B, therefore, is best. In place of the subjunctive, A uses the indicative are and E uses an awkward gerund, making, while C and D contain the unnecessary should. A and C also omit that after so, and D omits that after require. The phrase attempt to rebut is more idiomatic than the phrases that replace it in C and D. Choices C and E awkwardly place the plural noun witnesses between the plural pronoun they and its referent, defendants.

我看了好多以前的帖子，感觉上代词指代英以逻辑关系为主，不存在就近指代的规律，但我不明白，OG解释中黄色的那句话该怎么理解呢？

意思是C，E把复数名词witnesses放在they和它的指代词之间，造成歧义。

一般在they前出现两个复数名词时，就会造成歧义。

可是，

1。ABD中也存在两个复数名词，为什么不存在指代歧义的问题？？

2。参照以下NN曾激烈讨论过的两个帖子：

   http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&ID=15311
   http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&ID=15606

   NN观点一，作从句主语的代词优先指代主句主语。ABD明显不符合。

   NN观点二，（嘿嘿，好像是荣誉版主braveMBA说的），应优先考虑逻辑关系。本题so that they can attempt to rebut，从逻辑上看，显然应该是defendants来rebut，则可排除ABD的指代歧义。

   NN观点三，不存在就近指代的规律。那么本题ETS为什么还说“Choices C and E awkwardly place the plural noun witnesses between the plural pronoun they and its referent, defendants.”？？？

这是我一直没有搞得很清楚的问题，我也希望哪天能当上NN，哈哈，所以要求甚解！！

请斑竹、NN指点！！谢谢！

就近指代好像是没什么依据的，OG也并不是以就近指代来排除C，E的。

我比较同意观点二。

那如果这样的话，五个选项就都不该有指代歧义的问题了？

那ETS这句话又有什么意义呢？Choices C and E awkwardly place the plural noun witnesses between the plural pronoun they and its referent, defendants.

既然ETS特别说到了，它也应该代表一种语法现想吧。。。总觉得如果不弄懂，会影响以后其他题目的判断。。。

顶啊！还没明白呢，可千万不能沉！

看了之后我也晕了……

HELP!

G的语法是选最好的，不是选正确的，请楼主一定记住！

这题里面，OG的解释就是说they存在两个可以指待的对象，相对B自然就是不好的。

但是不要教条，如果前面出现人和物都是复数，那么they不岐意，因为从逻辑上面完全可以清晰判断，请记住，GMAT语法，逻辑为王！

斑竹， 实在是不好意思，我都不好意思问了，可是确实还没明白。。。

我知道逻辑为王，可是实在不明白ETS的这句话用意何在？

Choices C and E awkwardly place the plural noun witnesses between the plural pronoun they and its referent, defendants.

求求你了，再给看看吧。。。