OG13 SC 65 求救啊求救啊~~~~

wcc333

Digging in sediments in northern China, evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had previously thought.
A. evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had
C.scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than

正确答案是C。但我想问A，OG上有解释说： the dependeint clause starting with suggesting may be construed with either the evidence or the scientists, which makes this version unnecessarily ambiguous.

这是为什么，不是scientists 前面有个by么，怎么suggesting还可以修饰scientists? 求解答~~~
万分感谢~~

zzwho

shally莎莎 发表于 2013-5-19 17:04
这道题我想问 B选项的than had been的had主语是不是不明确呀？

为什么又遇到你了，额.....我认为B项的had been不是主语不明确，而是缺少主语，起码应该加个it或者that吧？

shally莎莎

这道题我想问 B选项的than had been的had主语是不是不明确呀？

rylstar01

wcc333 发表于 2013-4-10 13:38
THANK you啦！

那我想追问一下：如果是A by B, which呢，有跳跃么

暂时没印象呢：）不好意思。

wcc333

rylstar01 发表于 2013-4-10 12:25
1）分词结构在句中的话，貌似还没出现过跳跃的呢，一般是就近修饰；跳跃修饰的话，一般出现在A of B, which ...

THANK you啦！

那我想追问一下：如果是A by B, which呢，有跳跃么

bejamin1111

c用的是被动语态。一般被动语态的动作发出者都可以被省略。所以suggesting会有修饰evidence的嫌疑。来自: iPhone客户端

rylstar01

1）分词结构在句中的话，貌似还没出现过跳跃的呢，一般是就近修饰；跳跃修饰的话，一般出现在A of B, which...；A in B, which...等结构中
2）因为suggesting就近修饰了scientists而不是evidence，所以造成了ambiguous
3）A中的硬伤还有一处，evidence无法发错digging这个动作，只能由人发出。