prep07sc109题求助-与CD出品语法书指点做题思路貌似不符？

anniezhaobin · 发表于 2014-10-11 20:32:08

109. (30145-!-item-!-188;#058&004686)

Unlike psychiatrists, who are trained as medical doctors, psychologists have historically been forbidden from prescribing their patients drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing to licensed, doctoral level psychologists who complete an additional training and certification program.

(A) psychologists have historically been forbidden from prescribing their patients drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing
(B) psychologists have historically been forbidden to prescribe drugs for their patients, but in 2002 New Mexico began granting prescribing privileges
(C) psychologists have historically been forbidden to prescribe their patients drugs, but in 2002 in New Mexico, the privilege to prescribe began to be granted
(D) historically psychologists have been forbidden from prescribing their patients drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing
(E) historically psychologists have been forbidden from prescribing drugs for their patients, but in 2002 in New Mexico, they began granting prescribing privileges

不知有没有看完那本语法书的小伙伴帮忙解答一下：按照书上的论元遮蔽要点，外加转折句中的元素已全，那么我觉得此题的C选项省去了主语论元应该就已经可以构成转折了，可是为啥答案选B呢？盼解答。多谢！

aresilenzio · 发表于 2014-10-28 20:04:54

同惑。。。我觉得书上解释了很多我以前解释不了的题，却解释不了很多我已经解释了的题

aresilenzio · 发表于 2014-10-28 20:08:56

C也许是privilege 用法错吧，但是还是不明白，按照cd书上的观点，B中的致使者论元确实是多余的

anniezhaobin · 发表于 2014-10-30 22:40:19

aresilenzio 发表于 2014-10-28 20:08
C也许是privilege 用法错吧，但是还是不明白，按照cd书上的观点，B中的致使者论元确实是多余的 ...

哎这本书我很疑惑，我也碰上了类似的问题。感觉把已有的思路都打乱了，不知是不是不得法

aresilenzio · 发表于 2014-10-31 00:04:10

anniezhaobin 发表于 2014-10-30 22:40
哎这本书我很疑惑，我也碰上了类似的问题。感觉把已有的思路都打乱了，不知是不是不得法 ...

我也不知道，我现在觉得很多CD书上说的也确实在理，比如限制性修饰和非限制性修饰那些。我现在就只能对照着Manhattan的模拟题和书，只要manhattan里出现过的，直接或者见解证明是对的，我就信CD书的，如果做遍了六套题，还有书，找不到明确的支持，我就把CD书里的放一遍了，我觉得毕竟Manhattan才是经过时间考验的，也许CD说的确实对，但是没有时间考验，我真的不敢盲信。。。

yatina · 发表于 2014-10-31 12:33:06

没看过这本书，但在国外论坛上见过这道题，以下是MANHATTAN大神RON的解释：

* "forbid ... to" is more or less universally preferred to "forbid ... from" in formal written english, so i would assume that the gmat will follow the same preference.

a couple of other points:
* "prescribe drugs for their patients" is much better than "prescribe their patients drugs" (which would be fine in spoken language, but is at best awkward and at worst ambiguous when written)
* "prescribing privileges" is better than "the privilege to prescribe / privilege of prescribing", especially if the latter is placed at the end of the underlined part (as it is in choice a). the problem with the wording in choices (a) and (d) is that it's ambiguous: "...the privilege of prescribing to ... psychologists" could be taken to mean that the prescriptions themselves are being written for psychologists.

希望对你有帮助

anniezhaobin · 发表于 2014-11-5 20:53:10

aresilenzio 发表于 2014-10-31 00:04
我也不知道，我现在觉得很多CD书上说的也确实在理，比如限制性修饰和非限制性修饰那些。我现在就只能对照 ...

同意！我也觉得还是应该以OG为蓝本。现在回头看OG和Manhattan发现自己看得实在太粗了。也许真正吸收了这两本的精华再来看CD这本才能得其神吧。一起加油！

anniezhaobin · 发表于 2014-11-5 20:55:06

yatina 发表于 2014-10-31 12:33
没看过这本书，但在国外论坛上见过这道题，以下是MANHATTAN大神RON的解释：

* "forbid ... to" is more or ...

谢谢！瞬间理解了

其实这就是Manhattan书中第二章meaning的具体应用啊！

yatina · 发表于 2014-11-6 14:36:52

anniezhaobin 发表于 2014-11-5 20:55
谢谢！瞬间理解了其实这就是Manhattan书中第二章meaning的具体应用啊！

都说SC的最高境界就是抛开grammar，专注meaning~~~

anniezhaobin · 发表于 2014-11-6 16:47:12

yatina 发表于 2014-11-6 14:36
都说SC的最高境界就是抛开grammar，专注meaning~~~

喝杯咖啡好好干！

本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2007E2-SC-109 (CRUD)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

prep07sc109题求助-与CD出品语法书指点做题思路貌似不符？

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()