100. Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, and Minnesota have begun to enforce statewide bans prohibiting landfills to accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings. (A) prohibiting landfills to accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings (B) prohibiting that landfills accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings (C) prohibiting landfills from accepting leaves, brush, and grass clippings (D) that leaves, brush, and grass clippings cannot be accepted in landfills (E) that landfills cannot accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings 我想问a为何不对，解释里也有prohibite x to do 的用法啊？x forbids y to do z or x prohibits y from doing z. 的意思一样吗？
101. Even though the direct costs of malpractice disputes amounts to a sum lower than one percent of the $541 billion the nation spent on health care last year, doctors say fear of lawsuits plays a major role in health-care inflation. (A) amounts to a sum lower (B) amounts to less (C) amounted to less (D) amounted to lower (E) amounted to a lower sum OG解释中说less在此是名词，怎么理解啊？平常不是说high/low cost,D为何不对？
以下是引用laifu在2003-12-5 17:59:00的发言： 100. 我想问a为何不对，解释里也有prohibite x to do 的用法啊？x forbids y to do z or x prohibits y from doing z. 的意思一样吗？ 101. OG解释中说less在此是名词，怎么理解啊？平常不是说high/low cost,D为何不对？
100题，prohibit x to do是肯定错的，正确的应该是prohibit from--- 这题我所不理解的是og中“Secondly, the negative cannot after bans is illogical.”这句话我想了很久也不理解，为什么不合逻辑？还望帮忙讲讲。 101，根据m-w词典，less n. 1、a smaller portion 2、something of less importance 这题应该做前一种解释。 这里的less是和one percent of the $541 billion比较，不是修饰costs，一般好像常用less than+数量/金钱？这个地方不确定，还望指正。
1, i would never use 'prohibite sb to do sth', it's ... weird. ' prohibite sb from doing sth' is always good. 'prevent sb from doing sth' is also good 2, haa, 'ban sb not to do sth' is ... nobody will say ' the law bans people not to stop smoking in public places', on the contrary, ' the law bans people to smoke' 3, '10% of $543' is a whole here, LESS is perfect
don't agree. "Bans" in the context is a noun; "that"-introduced clauses is to explain or detail what the bans are. if I say; the state will enforce a ban that nobody can smoke in restaurant. what do you think? illogical?
以下是引用gmatchenaimin在2003-12-6 14:01:00的发言： don't agree. "Bans" in the context is a noun; "that"-introduced clauses is to explain or detail what the bans are. if I say; the state will enforce a ban that nobody can smoke in restaurant. what do you think? illogical?
但是如果你改成这样呢？ That nobody can smoke in restaurant is a ban. 而ban做名词解释就是order that bans. 那么不就是“在餐厅里不准吸烟”是“被禁止的了”吗？ 感觉很怪啊！
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-12-5 17:59:00
楼主
