这题感觉OG对选项的解释很不靠谱,LZ们努力挖掘OG解释背后的深层含义似乎越走越偏。
以下是我的理解,有不对求讨论。
OG解释这题唯一可取之处在于总体解说段。
OG思路: 原文表达一个 causal sequence,oversupply-->prices plunging-->manufacturer announcing The clearest, most efficient way to express this sequence is to present the event in chronological order, as theyoccurred.
从大方面来看,选项B,C和E的共同错误是使用了nonessential modifier,都逗号间断,使得oversupply或prices plunging中必有其一变成可以被忽略的内容。选项D正如OG所言,backward description,句首就是Due to plunging prices,之后再加介词结构from...连上oversupply,看起来主要意思就是plunging prices-->manufacturer announcing,似乎不能说错,但起码比起A遗漏了许多含义。另外,不确定from是否在限制时间或逻辑顺序的作用方面有瑕疵,但起码它不如A中的has sent毫无歧义地表达了oversupply-->pricies plunging的逻辑/时间关系。
从细节看各个错误选项问题太多了。
B) Because of plunging prices for computer chips, which is due to an oversupply, OG解释which指代prices。不能认同,which指代首先考虑的是最近的Noun,只有这个名词完全不可能被指代(比如是person或和谓语动词单复数不合)时才往远了考虑Noun1 + 介词 + Noun2结构中的Noun1,即这个选项中的prices,但因为prices也是复数和is不搭配,所以这里which也不能指代prices,which根本就无可指代。
C) Because computer chip prices have been sent pluunging, which resulted from an oversupply, 不明白这里的which为什么不能指代prices?原则不是the closet Noun it can refer to? 是因为离得太远了所以才容易造成歧义吗?
D) 最致命错误在于: If you replace the correct choice with this one, then you're obliged to describe the following noun, which is "the manufacturer". The manufacturer is not due to plunging chip prices, so that's nonsense. "Due to" only modifies the noun it touches and "Because/Because of" only modifies the entire clause/idea.
|