So dogged were Frances Perkins' investigations of the garment industry, and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was persistent, Alfred E. Smith and Franklin D. Roosevelt recruited Perkins to work within the government, rather than as a social worker.
228. So dogged were Frances Perkins' investigations of the garment industry, and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was persistent, Alfred E. Smith and Franklin D. Roosevelt recruited Perkins to work within the government, rather than as a social worker.
A. and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was persistent,
B. and lobbying for wage and hour reform was persistent, so that
C. her lobbying for wage and hour reform persistent, that
D. lobbying for wage and hour reform was so persistent, E. so persistent her lobbying for wage and hour reform, that
E is correct. 我设想这个句子的结构应该是So..., and so..., that或者是So..., 独立主格, that...的结构。因此我选了C。E的话两个so平行了,但是之间没有and连接可以吗?先谢谢大家的帮助。
谢谢天蝎提供原句,我不懂原句为什么that前面要有逗号...我个人理解原句是有问题的... NYtimes上找来的原句如果两个so并列,那么后一个分句跟that之间完全没有必要用逗号隔开。 而prep的这道考题里,so persistent her lobbying for wage and hour reform前面的and去掉了,说明并不是与前面的So dogged were Frances Perkins' investigations of the garment industry做并列成分,而是做从属伴随成分(独立主格).但同时因为两者都是recruited Perkins的原因,所以应该用相同结构。 C里面也是独立主格,伴随修饰前半个分句,错误的原因就在于并没有表示出her lobbying for wage and hour reform persistent也是recruited的原因之一。即便是分句,后面有了that,那么so that结构应该完整。
谢谢天蝎提供原句,我不懂原句为什么that前面要有逗号...我个人理解原句是有问题的... NYtimes上找来的原句如果两个so并列,那么后一个分句跟that之间完全没有必要用逗号隔开。 而prep的这道考题里,so persistent her lobbying for wage and hour reform前面的and去掉了,说明并不是与前面的So dogged were Frances Perkins' investigations of the garment industry做并列成分,而是做从属伴随成分(独立主格).但同时因为两者都是recruited Perkins的原因,所以应该用相同结构。 C里面也是独立主格,伴随修饰前半个分句,错误的原因就在于并没有表示出her lobbying for wage and hour reform persistent也是recruited的原因之一。即便是分句,后面有了that,那么so that结构应该完整。
So dogged were her investigations of the garment industry, and so persistent her lobbying for wage and hour reform, that she was first recruited by Gov. Al Smith, and later by Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt, to work within New York State government, rather than against it. NYtimes November 14, 1993 原文章: