ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

正确答案: D

相关帖子

更多...

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 3173|回复: 7
打印 上一主题 下一主题

请教大侠们一道《OG12版》与《白勇语法全解》有分歧的题!!

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-3-16 13:18:13 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
最近准备语法时做到一题很困或:
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States  ^ reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump ^ into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

OG12版的P671, 74题的答案解释为D, 但是白用语法全解的第四章 动词形式 的第三道习题,解释为A
我觉得A更为正确啊~~~麻烦大侠帮忙~~~~~
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2010-3-16 13:22:15 | 只看该作者
同问同问!我也选的A,怎么个意思呢`??大虾快来帮忙解释一下吧~~~~~~~~~~~`
板凳
发表于 2010-3-16 21:53:42 | 只看该作者
其实我当时也纠结了很久 顶顶吧
地板
发表于 2010-3-16 23:34:31 | 只看该作者
manhattan论坛,如此解释,我觉得貌似说的通: It is nonsensical to believe that a past agreement could reduce the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump, since the dumping had already taken place. In other words, it is not possible to retroactively reduce the amount of dumping.

However, a similar sentence with a different meaning could definitely use the past perfect. For example, it would be grammatically proper to state A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States fined the Canadians for the amount of phosphate that municipalities had dumped into the Great Lakes. . In this case, there are two distinct past events: the fine and the dumping. To indicate that the dumping preceded the fine, the past perfect is perfectly appropriate!
5#
发表于 2010-3-17 09:55:13 | 只看该作者
我觉得从逻辑上讲,过去被允许的,已经成为历史了,不可改变了。要改变的,是将来的许可量。所以应该选D。
6#
发表于 2010-3-18 22:52:23 | 只看该作者
顶一个,期待牛牛来解决
7#
 楼主| 发表于 2010-3-19 13:29:35 | 只看该作者
呵呵~~自顶一个~觉得三楼的解释有点道理~~~~~~仍期待权威来个了断呀~~吼~
8#
发表于 2010-4-15 22:49:16 | 只看该作者
正在纠结这道题
从中文意义上讲,过去的agreement的确可以减少现在的倾倒量,但是从语法上貌似不太符合常规
但是如果是had been allowed to dump的话~说明这些amount已经在agreement签订之前倾倒掉了~就更不可能reduce了。。。
期待高人解答。。。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-23 13:20
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部