- UID
- 1338108
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2018-4-14
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund reserves to $1.2 billion, that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit,year by year.
(B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer
(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
1. C选项，helr大神的解释是for payment of environmental claims应该改为to pay for environmental claims。这点考查了“不定式和名词的区别”。用之于本题，主句“留下足够的钱”这个事件发生时，“支付环保声明”这件事显然是处于“将要发生”这一状态中的，即，“留钱”对“支付环保成本”有直接的影响，因此，应该用不定式短语。
我的疑问是for和to在表示目的时的区别是啥（像Ron大神举的plan for和plan to的区别，to表直接动作，for表目的）？to暗含的是后面pay的动作还未发生，但for在这里为什么不能用呢（如果environmental claims已经形成了，现在存在）？还有for payment of相比to pay for会不会更累赘呢？
2. B选项，解释是：由于enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid（with which引导的是定语从句，修饰enough）是被动语态，所以这半句中没有给出任何关于the Life and Casualty Company的信息，即，其可以近似写为：
某物或某公司 has set aside enough with which environmental claims can be paid（例如：我们可以把“蛋糕被吃了”理解为“某人或某物吃了蛋糕”）
在逻辑上，这半句在语境中不能成立。因为，语境中已经明确，是The Life and Casualty Company希望的一件事，所以肯定是“这个公司”放置了足够的钱，而不能是“某个公司”放置了足够的钱。
为什么可以通过被动语态中缺动作的发出对象排除B？
同理还有一道题。。OG 698
Unlike the nests of leaf cutters and most other ants, situated underground or in pieces of wood, raider ants make a portable nest by entwining their long legs to form “curtains” of ants that hang from logs or boulders, providing protection for the queen and the colony larvae and pupae.
(C) leaf cutters and most other ants, whose nests are
(D) leaf cutters and most other ants in having nests
D的解释是：in having nests situated underground or in pieces of wood是由in引导的介词短语。这表示，having nests situated underground or in pieces of wood必然是一个动名词短语（介词身后只能加名词），因此，这个having不具有“逻辑主语”是谁的问题，因为“名词”从来没有逻辑主语（要想给动名词或者名词添加自己的主语，必须用所有格的形式，例如most other ants' having nests）。因此，在本选项中，having nests并没有主语，即，我们不知道是谁在拥有这些巢穴。但在逻辑上，显然是蚂蚁们拥有这些巢穴，因此，应该用定语从句。
为什么可以通过缺拥有巢穴的对象来排除D呢。。。求解答
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2018-11-18 06:08:46
收藏
收藏
楼主
