og32 以前没讨论过，大家帮忙看一下！

32. Some buildings that were destroyed and heavily dam­aged in the earthquake last year were constructed in violation of the city's building code.

(A)  Some buildings that were destroyed and heavily damaged in the earthquake last year were

(B)   Some buildings that were destroyed or heavily damaged in the earthquake last year had been

(C)  Some buildings that the earthquake destroyed and heavily damaged last year have been

(D)  Last year the earthquake destroyed or heavily damaged some buildings that have been

(E)   Last year some of the buildings that were destroyed or heavily damaged in the earthquake had been

Choice B is best. Choices A and C illogically state that some buildings were both destroyed and damaged; or is needed to indicate that each of the buildings suffered either one fate or the other. In using only one verb tense, were, A fails to indicate that the buildings were constructed before the earthquake occurred. Choices C and D use the present perfect tense incorrectly, saying in effect that the buildings have been constructed after they were destroyed last year. Choice E suggests that the construction of the buildings, rather than the earthquake, occurred last year, thus making the sequence of events unclear. Only B uses verb tenses correctly to indicate that construction of the buildings was completed prior to the earthquake.

请教大家红子部分从哪里可以看出，感觉即使是说buildings were constructed after the earthquake 也可以阿？为什么og说不行？谢谢！

B 中 some building 和 E some of the buildings 有何区别？另外，烦请能人解释一下Choice E suggests that the construction of the buildings, rather than the earthquake, occurred last year, thus making the sequence of events unclear. 谢啦！！！

哦，再仔细看了一下，觉得last year 位子有问题。B 更准确，而E中last year 在句首，既可修饰前半句，又可修饰整个句子。

请指教。

可是一样可以理解为去年那些建筑物被地震摧毁或严重破坏，今年重修了部分建筑，偶当时做题的时候就是这样理解又没看出and和or的考点而选错的
所以还是要翻出来请教大家为什么“建”一定是在“毁”之前发生的

另外，最后in violation of city's building code是什么意思？我没有理解正确和我没看明白这半句有没有关系？

   谈谈我的理解：

   开始的时候我对题目的理解和你一样，但是后来发现如果是“重建”的话，题目的选项能体现这个时间顺序的只有C接近。但是我又仔细读读句子，发现C表达也不是重建的意思，而是那些建筑在倒之前是违章建筑。所以C有逻辑错误。

    in violation of city's building code在句子中的作用，是说那些违背建筑要求的building倒了，有点像是解释那些建筑倒的原因。

一家之言！

这样偶就明白了，没看懂这半句时偶一直觉得这句话没有任何语境让我想到建筑是先“建”后“毁”而非“重建”。如果是违章建筑的话，那么显然先建后毁在语意上更加通畅。
谢谢啦

but I am still confused, even the building is violation of city code, it does not necessary that this building can't be reconstruct after the earthquake?

I am not clear about the time mark in this sentence, thanks for help in advance!