prep07-132

rainbowmanutd · 发表于 2012-3-15 04:05:40

A recent review of payscales indicates that CEO's now earn an average of 419 times more pay thanblue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980.

(A) that CEO's nowearn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to aratio of 42 times

(B) that, on average,CEO's now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that comparesto 42 times

(C) that, on average,CEO's now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42times their pay, the ratio

(D) CEO's who now earnon average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 timestheir pay, the ratio

(E) CEO's now earning an average of 419 timesthe pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times

选C, 但是their不会有指代歧义吗

jarod_elf · 发表于 2012-3-15 04:34:51

CEO's are plural, no ambiguity

rainbowmanutd · 发表于 2012-3-16 03:32:11

CEO's are plural, no ambiguity

-- by 会员 jarod_elf (2012/3/15 4:34:51)

为什么不会指代workers?

clairexuan9 · 发表于 2012-3-16 04:04:18

B. that, on average,CEO's now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that comparesto 42 times

这个选项是否ration容易造成歧义，而变成是workers的同位语？

powerlgx · 发表于 2012-3-17 15:46:46

ls, a ratio和workers完全不是一类东西，不可能成为同位语的

powerlgx · 发表于 2012-3-17 15:52:50

CEO's are plural, no ambiguity

-- by 会员 jarod_elf (2012/3/15 4:34:51)

为什么不会指代workers?

-- by 会员 rainbowmanutd (2012/3/16 3:32:11)

你是对的，从逻辑上来看是不可能指代CEO's的，把整个句子补全是这样的
……as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio……
……as it (419 times the pay of blue-collarworkers) is compared to 42 times their pay, the ration……
their要是指代CEO's的话，句意变为CEO's的收入是workers的419倍又是自己（CEO's）42倍，这个是不可能的吧，所以只能指代workers

prep07-132

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()