prep08 187 老题新问，非常困惑，关于which指代(有深度！)

PhoenixPenn · 发表于 2014-11-4 05:17:43

187. (27622-!-item-!-188;#058&002521)
UnitedStates Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within theDemocratic party during his first term, that included assistant majoritywhip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.
A.that included
B.which includes
C.including
D.some of which were
E.among them being

OA: C

在下的问题是在D上，ron的帖子说D错是因为which的变体-some of which-与which的用法相同，所以就近不当修饰了first term，被出局

但是！！就算是变成which，那D就变which were，后面这个were不是把修饰范围限定在posts了吗？因为只有posts是复数嘛

再者，判断which的修饰对象经常就是根据其后跟的have/has或is/are来从主谓一致的角度确定的，所以这里咋就不成立了呢

非常头疼！呼唤牛牛们的帮助~

Ron原帖:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/including-some-of-which-were-t7343.html

PhoenixPenn · 发表于 2014-11-4 22:22:40

顶，求牛牛帮助

PhoenixPenn · 发表于 2014-11-4 23:33:24

同样的还有OG13 DT的40题:

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.

(A) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and
(B) laws, which was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and it is
(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and
(D) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845, it is
(E) laws that was an observation about electric current, first made in 1845, and is

OA: A

E og解释说是错误修饰了laws。但它有was和is，不能认为是只能修饰one of laws嘛？

kiwifoodtown · 发表于 2014-11-5 09:09:51

LZ，
第1题，some of which were不单单是修饰不当，更重要的是从句的内容与several posts不对等，不能用were，所以用including。

第2题，E选项是限定性定语从句，必须修饰临近的名词，所以错了，而且，个人认为 first made in 1845，在形式上有作状语来修饰从句的主语a colleague 的嫌疑，所以这里选A更好。

PhoenixPenn · 发表于 2014-11-5 09:51:57

kiwifoodtown 发表于 2014-11-5 09:09
LZ，
第1题，some of which were不单单是修饰不当，更重要的是从句的内容与several posts不对等，不能用wer ...

谢谢帮助！

1明白了

2再问问牛牛: 我记得that不是可以跳介词短语和插入语的么…我一下次找不到例子，牛牛看看og这第一题算不算

1. In a review of 2000 studies of human behavior that date back to the 1930s, two Swiss psychologists declared that since most of the studies had failed to control for variables such as social class and family size, none could be taken seriously.

kiwifoodtown · 发表于 2014-11-5 10:36:56

PhoenixPenn 发表于 2014-11-5 09:51
谢谢帮助！

1明白了

相对于其他选项来说，that这个限定性定语从句在这里有修饰laws的嫌疑，但不是绝对错误。我个人更倾向于认为E的错误是, first made in 1845, 这里有作状语的嫌疑，以及and is在这里错误的与was平行。

PhoenixPenn · 发表于 2014-11-5 11:08:27

kiwifoodtown 发表于 2014-11-5 10:36
相对于其他选项来说，that这个限定性定语从句在这里有修饰laws的嫌疑，但不是绝对错误。我个人更倾向于认 ...

嗯嗯，想不通就从别处入手吧= = GMAT里这些修饰我也真是醉了

谢谢解惑

[SC悬赏令] prep08 187 老题新问，非常困惑，关于which指代(有深度！)

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()