41. Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied. Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.
(A) was never applied, Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it
(B) was never applied, there has been a requirement that Congress call a convention for consideration of possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally
(C) was never applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally
(D) has never been applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so
(E) has never been applied. Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so
Choices A, B, C, and D contain tense errors (the use of was never applied with has been required in A, for example), unidiomatic expressions (call... for considering), and uses of a pronoun (it) with no noun referent. By introducing the subordinating conjunction whereby, C and D produce sentence fragments. Only E, the best choice, corrects all of these problems. The predicate has never been applied refers to a span of time, from the writing of the Constitution to the present, rather than to a past event (as was does), and the phrase is required indicates that the provision still applies. The phrase call... to consider is idiomatic, and to do so can substitute grammatically for it.
划线部分的解释不是很理解,这样为什么不对?错在哪里?从意思上看有什么不合逻辑的地方吗?
[此贴子已经被作者于2004-11-28 19:34:25编辑过] |