- UID
- 1177975
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2015-12-5
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
地板
楼主 |
发表于 2016-6-15 17:09:06
|
只看该作者
天哪 ！！！！我找到了千行里的这道题！解释的好详细！！急切分享~
语义表达;修饰;句子结构;
A.there指代不明;provisions of表达redundant;that provide that表达redundant;they指代不明,有很多合理的复数名词;
B.正确;
C.缺少主句;stimulating的主语不明确;句子结构混乱意思不清晰;
D.under provision of表达awkward;this指代不明,且不能单独使用,更不能指代整个句子;
E.缺少主句;which只能指代maritime code,并不能说明stimulate的整个原因,句子意思错误;
"注意,这里有出现介词短语修饰了,C选项的under provision of更像再修饰sea areas; 当你看到comma+modifier要考虑的两个要点（RON）：
1) when you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
-- the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action"
"关于D选项this不能裸奔所引发的知识点Ron：
choice (d) uses ""this"" as a standalone pronoun. that's pretty much never acceptable in a formal written sentence.
if you're going to use ""this"", you should use it as an adjective: this thing, this finding, this statistic, etc.
also, here's some ""extra credit"" knowledge:
there ARE constructions that can stand for the abstract information in an entire clause (unlike pronouns, which are limited to standing for actual nouns). chief among these are the COMMA + NOUN modifiers.
however, the presence of ""because"" at the beginning of choice (d) would preclude the use of those modifiers as well.
here's an example:
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked most observers.
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y; this finding has shocked most observers.
--> both correct. note that ""a finding"", following the comma, or ""this finding"", standing alone after the semicolon, stands for the entirety of the clause that comes before it; you couldn't use ""which"" here, because ""which"" would automatically refer to Y.
"错误的句型：because studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding has shocked most observers.
--> incorrect. the presence of ""because"" at the beginning of the first clause means you can't use ""this finding"" anymore.
i don't have any idea what the actual rule is here, but i do know with 100% certainty that these constructions are allowed and disallowed respectively.
C选项的comma+VING结构不对（之前疏忽的一点，又学习了，RON）：
COMMA + -ING modifiers must modify the preceding clause, but the -ING participle must also apply to the subject of the preceding clause.
therefore, the use of that comma+ing modifier would imply that the islets themselves are stimulating disputes. that's not true.
A选项的另外一个错误是redundancy：provisions和provide意思重复；要注意correctness永远是凌驾在clarity之上的！"
"CDE 中对misplaced modifier的解读：
the modifier ""under provisions of the new maritime code"" is placed in a location that is somewhat ambiguous -- it seems to suggest that the sea areas themselves are under those provisions.
(this is certainly not a fatal error, but you should notice it in contrast to the other answer choices, in which that modifier is moved to a more logically sound location).
贴个很有价值的（Q&A）
Q：The fact that ""new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields"". is what is stimulating disputes. but not the code！
A（Ron）：this way of thinking is too rigid; certain sentences/discussions would become ridiculous if required to adhere to such a standard.
for instance, let's say that an author writes a 300-page book that contains a couple of very controversial statements on pages 48 and 49.
in this case, it would be perfectly acceptable to refer to the book as ""controversial""; one would not need to refer to the exact statements in the book that caused the controversy.
(in fact, it would even be acceptable to refer to the author as ""controversial"", too, for making those statements.)"
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2016-6-2 18:45:09
收藏
收藏
