prep1-164

164.      One automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.

(A) amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing

(B) amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and it would represent

(C) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and it would represent

(D) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent

(E) which is an increase amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, representing

请问，amounting的逻辑主语，不可以是前面的整个句子么？

还有，正确答案D中的would，可以用于现在时态吗？现在时为什么会有would呢？

谢谢。

我也想知道为什么用would?

还有一个问题：答案D ， an increase 是做同位语，that would amount 和 would represent 做increase 的并列定语，

1， 如果是并列的定语从句，那么为什么后面部分would represent ,没有that ,而不是an increase that would amount ..and that would represent 形式？

2， 如果是并列谓语，那么为什么第二个would 没有省略呢？ 而不是an increase that would amount... and represnt...形式？

谢谢

“amounting” and “representing” are ambiguous. What is “representing” referring to: increase or efficiency or vehicles or 25% or years?
“Amounting to” – which means “equivalent to” – can only modify 25% – but then representing cannot modify 25%.
“Represent” or “representing” should refer back to an “increase”…

We need the modal “would” to preserve the hypothetical tone of the sentence.

“has announced” is present perfect tense, which would require a present tense.

However, as this increase is as yet uncertain as it is in the future, “would amount to” is the ideal construct.

以上解释

那么would 是作为一种猜想，推测的语气

there are two kinds of parallel signals: ONE-PART (such as "and", "or", "but"), and TWO-PART (such as "not only ... but also", "both ... and").

when you have PARALLELISM WITH A ONE-PART SIGNAL, the only words that are "locked in" are the ones directly FOLLOWING the signal.
as long as you can find the corresponding structure in the other part, then the parallelism is fine.

examples:
i worked in nevada and florida.
i worked in nevada and in florida.

BOTH OF THESE ARE FINE.

reasons:
in the first, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is just florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just nevada.
since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel:
i worked in
nevada
            
and
            
florida.

in the second, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is in florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just in nevada.
since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel:
i worked
in nevada
            
and
            
in florida.

--

for completely analogous reasons, this sentence would be fine either with or without your second "that":

an increase that
would amount to roughly five miles per gallon
            
and
            
would represent...

an increase
that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon
            
and
            
that would represent...

there are two kinds of parallel signals: ONE-PART (such as "and", "or", "but"), and TWO-PART (such as "not only ... but also", "both ... and").

when you have PARALLELISM WITH A ONE-PART SIGNAL, the only words that are "locked in" are the ones directly FOLLOWING the signal.
as long as you can find the corresponding structure in the other part, then the parallelism is fine.

examples:
i worked in nevada and florida.
i worked in nevada and in florida.

BOTH OF THESE ARE FINE.

reasons:
in the first, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is just florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just nevada.
since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel:
i worked in
nevada
            
and
            
florida.

in the second, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is in florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just in nevada.
since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel:
i worked
in nevada
            
and
            
in florida.

--

for completely analogous reasons, this sentence would be fine either with or without your second "that":

an increase that
would amount to roughly five miles per gallon
            
and
            
would represent...

an increase
that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon
            
and
            
that would represent...

kankan

提供一种解释：

        A中直接使用amounting to 全句的意思变更为，增加其运动性车的平均汽油效率，增加到每加仑5迈（增加后的最终值）。而C，D中用an increase that whould amount to 的意思是，增加的效率值为每加仑5迈。意思不同。