og001, 请nn指点

1. The Wallerstein study indicates that even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce occurring when a child.

(A)  occurring when a child

(B)  occurring when children

(C)  that occurred when a child

(D)  that occurred when they were children

(E)  that has occurred as each was a child

Choice D is best. The phrasing a divorce that occurred when they were children correctly uses the relative clause that occurred to modify a divorce and includes a pronoun and verb (they were) that refer unambiguously to their antecedent, men and women. Choice A incorrectly introduces the when... phrase with occurring, thus illogically making divorce the grammatical referent of when a child; furthermore, the singular child does not agree with the plural men and women. B replaces child with children but otherwise fails to correct A's errors of structure and logic, and C corrects only the error created by occurring. Choice E includes an incorrect verb tense (has occurred) and wrongly replaces when with as. Also, each was does not properly refer to men and women.

and C corrects only the error created by occurring. ,请教occurring犯了什么错？是不是说如果选项写成occurring when they were children一样是错的？

请nn指点！

bebrave mm,

强烈推荐先参考GMAT大区各版块的置顶贴，好东东多多！相信它们可以解决你大部分问题。

本语法区置顶贴有：

语法区第一贴 －《语法区版规》

[推荐]GMAT单科捷进之语法备考方法篇

GMAT语法复习资料库

GMAT语法知识点精华贴分类汇总

GMAT语法讨论链接总录

如果阅读完上述相关内容仍未能解决你的问题，欢迎发帖继续讨论。发帖一定要注意“版规”里的要求哦。谢谢！

祝你复习过程顺利、愉快！

我搜索过了，没找到。

菜鸟手册里有注解：

that定语从句和分词的区别：分词相当于非限定定语从句，而限定定语从句和非限定定语从句的区别是局部和范围的区别，所表达的意思有很大的差异。

但我还是不太明白， 因为我分词相当于非限定定语从句好像说得太绝对了，而我在语法书里看到对限定非限定的区别是：

Restrictive elements are never set off with punctuation.

Nonrestrictive elements are always set off with punctuation.

如果这样的话，occurring的错就不是菜鸟手册上的原因。。。还是请NN指点一下吧！

mm，你对限定性修饰与非限定性修饰的理解是对的。

  p200002，是呀，

做题，查书，搞来搞去，我常常糊涂掉！

我正烦恼呢，半天才看了5题，我是不是世界上最慢的人？