og-sc-128 WITH独主问题

没找到有人问C项里WITH的问题，所以求教
og-sc-128
. Australian embryologists have found evidence that
suggests that the elephant is descended from an
aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolving as a
kind of snorkel.
(A) that suggests that the elephant isdescended
from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally
evolving
(B) that has suggested the elephant descended from
an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
(C》 suggesting that the elephanthad descended
from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally
evolved
(D) to suggest that the elephant haddescended
from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally
evolved
(E) to suggest that the elephant is descended from
an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally
evolved

OG对C项中with的错误解释如下:
   with can't be followed by an independent clause
1）不明白，我想这里with不对的意思应该是前面用了完成时态，不用伴随了
2）我想问下这里的with型独主是修饰that从句里descened这个词呢，还是还可以往前修饰found这个词呢，不考虑其它，就想问下修饰的位置关系，不太明白，谢谢

没找到有人问C项里WITH的问题，所以求教
og-sc-128
. Australian embryologists have found evidence that
suggests that the elephant is descended from an
aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolving as a
kind of snorkel.
(A) that suggests that the elephant isdescended
from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally
evolving
(B) that has suggested the elephant descended from
an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
(C》 suggesting that the elephanthad descended
from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally
evolved
(D) to suggest that the elephant haddescended
from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally
evolved
(E) to suggest that the elephant is descended from
an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally
evolved

OG对C项中with的错误解释如下:
   with can't be followed by an independent clause
1）不明白，我想这里with不对的意思应该是前面用了完成时态，不用伴随了
2）我想问下这里的with型独主是修饰that从句里descened这个词呢，还是还可以往前修饰found这个词呢，不考虑其它，就想问下修饰的位置关系，不太明白，谢谢

谢谢你啊
1）中我是对OG的解释不太清楚意思
2）句子主语？C里面你是说主句还是从句呢？另外WITH型独主应该修饰的是前述的动作吧，要说主语应该是逻辑的主语吧？

对于第二点：
                           小菜以为with修饰的应该是句子主语，对于此题，应该就是修饰the elephant。这点我是从prep2008上看来的，并且，一般来讲，with用作独立主格一般被判累赘，所以不怎么选~

不知道说的对不对啊，还求各位拍我~希望对你有帮助~O(∩_∩)O

我觉得你的问题提得非常好！

我先来说OG怎么解释的：
OG对C项中with的错误解释如下:
   with can't be followed by an independent clause
OG这话的意思是，with后面不能跟一个完整的从句。其实你复习独立主格的时候会发现，"with ..."这种通常的结构是：
with + noun + noun modifier
注意：上面没有verb，所以构不成一个indepedent clause
比如我们可以说
I am driving my car with windows open.
但不能说
I am driving my car with windows are open. (WRONG)
看这道题的C选项：with its trunk originally evolved ...
如果我们要写成一个句子：Its trunk originally evolved ..... 我们会这么写，其中evolved作为动词，是动词的过去式
那么在with后面跟一个句子，就不对了。OG想说的就是这个语法上的错误。

2）我想问下这里的with型独主是修饰that从句里descened这个词呢，还是还可以往前修饰found这个词呢，不考虑其它，就想问下修饰的位置关系，不太明白，谢谢

你这个问题很犀利，而事实上我觉得这正是C选项最关键的逻辑错误——如果说我上面说的是语法错误的话
    顺便说，不要去justify错误选项，比如你看到错误选项用了"with ..."而然后OG没说是错的，于是你希望证明这个结构是对的.....Ron说过，OG的题目出得非常好，但是很多解释不好，有些解释没有刺中核心问题或者忽略了错误选项的一些错误。GMAT的错误选项通常不止一处错，而正确选项会做得很完美——因为他们要防止产生质疑。

(C》 suggesting that the elephanthad descended
from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally
evolved
这个"with ... "是有歧异的！我们作为读者可以这么断句：
the elephantdescended froman (aquatic) animal(with its trunk originally evolved ....)
如果我们这么断句的话, "with ...."就是修饰animal，这么理解从语法上讲完全没有问题，从逻辑上也还算合理
同样，我们也可以理解这个"with ..."是修饰descended的动作，从逻辑上还算合理
当一个句子可以产生不止一个逻辑上合理的理解的时候，GMAT必然不会接受。因为作者的本意只有一个。
Analogy:
I am driving my car with windows open.     "with ...."修饰car，从common sense来看，不可能有歧义
I am driving my car with pleasure.       "with pleasure"修饰动作"be driving"，从common sense来看，也不可能有歧义
这两句也是"with ..."放到后面，结构相同，但"with...”修饰对象不同。这两个句子都对，因为不会有歧义。
但咱前面分析的C选项，两种理解都没问题，就是有歧义。
至于你说"with ..."还可以修饰"found"，我觉得这倒不太make sense：
"Scientists have found ... with its trunk ...."
这句话its trunk哪里来？C选项里，its truck中的its，逻辑上合理（暂不考虑语法）的指代，要不就是elephant，要不就是animal。
所以说，"with ...."修饰"found"是不可能的。

然后C选项的错误，还在于改变了愿意（OG解释的第一段说了）。句子原意是发现了两件相互关联的事，两件事并列关系。而C这个句子，就算我们按照"with ..."修饰descend动作来理解，那也是改变了句意，把两件并列的事变成了一轻一重、一个伴随一个。

不知道我说清楚没有...

我认为，歧义与否看句意，多做题多总结会有“感觉”，但称不上定式（定式如果要100%可靠，那就是严格语法规则，例如，形容词修饰名词，副词修饰动词，但不能拿形容词修饰动词——当然，我这废话，你肯定懂的）。

其实可以推广到所有的modifier，modifier的修饰对象，要合乎语法，且要合乎逻辑。在合乎语法和逻辑的逻辑的基础上，如果还能有歧义，那原句子就是错的。（当然，不合乎语法和逻辑的“歧义理解”那叫做“曲解”，GMAT不予考虑。）其实，你不妨在OG12和verbal review 2nd文档中，搜索"ambiguity" "ambiguous"，就能看到哪些例子GMAT认为存在歧义。

你说的“有with的独立主格”的歧义问题，我觉得可以推广到一切prep phrase.
S+V+O+prep phrase
语法上讲，这个prep phrase既可以修饰verb，也可以修饰临近的noun（通常是object），如果这两者都合乎逻辑，那么句子就有歧义。

I am driving my car with my attention focused.
I am driving my carwith GPS equipped.
我编了这两个句子，都是用你说的"带with的独立主格结构"，都没有歧义。第一句, "with my attention focused"只能修饰"am driving"，如果理解成"car with my attention focused"不合逻辑；第二句，可以说"car with GPS equipped"，但不能理解为"driving with GPS equipped"，因为"equipped"这个词只有结合"car"才make sense。

举个歧义的例子，Manhattan上的
The dealer was asked to sell a painting by Picasso.
既可以是"a painting by Picasso"，也可以是"was asked by Picasso"。这两种理解都完全符合语法和逻辑。

欢迎讨论~