og260

260. According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so that it was the lowest in two years suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.

(A) so that it was the lowest in two years

(B) so that it was the lowest two-year rate

(C) to what would be the lowest in two years

(D) to a two-year low level（E）

(E) to the lowest level in two years

E, the best choice, employs idiomatic construction and uses the precise decrease... to the lowest level. (固定用法)Choices A and B are faulty in construction. The adverbial so that can modify verbs (e.g., decreased) but not nouns (e.g., the decrease). (so adj. That,v. so that 不是n. so that.)The meaning of lowest two-year rate in B is unclear; in any event the phrase distorts the intended meaning of lowest in two years. (错误用法)In A and B, the referent of it is unclear, as the pronoun could refer to either unemployment or decrease. (代词指代不清)Choice C improperly uses would be to describe a situation that is presented as a current and known fact. (？？？？)Also, there is no noun for lowest to modify; clearly “the lowest decrease” is not intended. (？？？)In D, the phrase two-year low level is unidiomatic, as well as unclear in its intended meaning. (代词无指代对象)

1.Choice C improperly uses would be to describe a situation that is presented as a current and known fact. (？？？？)

would be 在GNAT中有两种表达 1 虚拟  2 不确定的事  

那划线的是什么意思呢 would be 还有另外的表达意思吗

2Also, there is no noun for lowest to modify; clearly “the lowest decrease” is not intended. (？？？)

这不是指代the decrease in umemployment  为何讲修饰不清晰呢

谢谢

Choice C improperly uses would be to describe a situation that is presented as a current and known fact.

这句话是OG指出C的错误：C错误地用would be去表达一个事实（换言之，事实不能用would be表达，和你自己的分析完全一致）；

2Also, there is no noun for lowest to modify; clearly “the lowest decrease” is not intended. (？？？)这不是指代the decrease in umemployment  为何讲修饰不清晰呢

lowest decrease这种表达不复合匹配原则。

这个能再讲讲吗 没明白

第一个问题已经理解了 谢谢

(C) to what would be the lowest in two years

what指代什么呢？如果指decrease，那么decrease ... be lowest，显然不合逻辑。

decrease to the lowest 降到最低 可行

the lowest decrease 最低的降 不合理

这样理解 对吗

谢谢

这样表达不对的

OG中确实有好多错误都没有说

哈哈，偶认为cranberry兄过于钻牛角尖了，OG原话：the phrase two-year low level is unidiomatic，其实OG只是认为这种用法不符合习惯，比如我们说：She is a beautiful girl. 这复合习惯，但是如果改为：She is a girl beautiful. 我们觉得好像也行，但美国人认为这种表达明显不复合习惯。