【新题求解答】OG13 97~求版主们牛牛们解答！！！关于that和ving的问题！！搜了帖子木有...

Yui1991

some anthropologists believe that the genetic homogeneity evident in the world's people is the result of a "population bottleneck"--at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers and thus our genetic variation.
（A） at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers
（B） that at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event that greatly reduced their numbers
（C） that sometime in the past our ancestors suffered an event so that their numbers were greatly reduced
（D） some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event from which their numbers were greatly reduced
（E） some time in the past, that our ancestors suffered an event so as to reduce their numbers greatly,            

OG给出的A项的解释：
A    The omission of that after dash makes the function of the final clause unclear. The structure makes that clause appear to be an awkward and rhetorically puzzling separate assertion that the writer has appended to the prior claim about what the anthropologists believe. The agent or cause of reducing is unclear.         

问题： 1、我看了看dash的用法，按句意应该是理解成解释说明，那就等于colon,而colon后可加完整的句子，也可加不完整的，如果替换成colon的话，那这句话就变成some anthropologists believe that the genetic homogeneity evident in the world's people is the result of a "population bottleneck"：at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers and thus our genetic variation. 所以，我想问：为什么必须留下that呢？OG的解释感觉不太能说服我。难道冒号后用个完整地句子说明就和前面没有联系了么？                                                            
           2、想问一下这里的comma+ving，看了baby姐的关于ving的解释，刷OG也碰到好多题，但是这句有点不理解OG的解释，问题是：为什么cause of reducing就不clear了呢？难道不能理解成为结果状语么？即ancestor suffered an event，说是immediate consequence也能说通啊（比如突然遇到大火，然后马上就reduced numbers了）

           3、也就是因为第二个问题所以又把我弄糊涂了，想问：comma+ving这种放在句尾，如果是伴随状语（或别的什么都好），如果有多个句子时，到底是修饰它前面的这个主句（可能在整个句子里充当从句，比如说：some anthropologists believe that the genetic homogeneity evident in the world's people is the result of a "population bottleneck"—that at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers and thus our genetic variation.），还是整个句子的主句呢？意思就是：比如说这个句子我在破折号后加上that，但是后面依旧用reducing，那此时reducing按语法要求上应该是修饰that从句里的 ancestors suffered and event还是 大主句里的some anthropologist believe 又或者是believe里面的从句genetic homogenetity is the result of呢？【虽然唯一合乎逻辑的是第一个，我是想问，但是有没有规定的语法要求就是要修饰临近的这个，还是说只能根据逻辑判断？】                     

另外贴上OG的解释：
The underlined part of this sentence is an explanatory rewording of the clause that follows believe. Scientists believe that X—[in other woeds,] that Y. In this construction, X and Y are parallel clauses.
是有这个习语么，必须后面是that Y?我觉得按句意理解完全可以不看成believe的宾语，而单纯理解为对population bottleneck的解释啊...（又回到第一个问题了）     


求牛牛们解答！！！好困扰啊~~~~~头都要抓破啦！！！~~~~~~~~~~~~~先谢过了！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！                                                        
                                                                          

kakadinho

elainecao 发表于 2013-12-1 12:50
我觉得是不是可以这样理解：
（1）"The omission of that after dash makes the function of the final cla ...

Manhattan 关于破折号的解释：You can use the dash to restate or explain an earlier part of the sentence. Unlike the colon, the dash does not need to be immediately preceded by the part needing explanation.也就是说，破折号后面解释的东西不一定是在解释紧接着破折号前面的内容（此题也就是bottleneck），也可以解释其他部分。为了clarify到底dash后面解释什么，official answer just puts a "that" to be parallel with the total clause following "believe". 如果不加that，dash后面解释什么就不够清晰。
更深层次，Ron教我们从意思入手，believe that (人类基因同源是“人口瓶颈”的结果) --- 某event减少了人口进而减少了基因多样性。根据颜色你看出什么了？对，你发现逻辑上破折号后确实在讲believe that的内容，难怪OG说“Repetition of that signals the paraphrasing of the belief and is therefore needed.”
However，我认为这个不是make-or-break error, 还有其他error帮助你选出正确答案。

enkyklios

结果状语可不可以加？？？  当然可以，但是A选项中的却不能？？ 至于为什么论坛里已经对这个论述的太多了，你自己查一下。我现在告诉你印像就不深刻了

星星考鸡麦

清酉湘竹2018 发表于 2018-11-17 08:32
V-VING做结果状语没问题，修饰对象是前面的句子，而不是前面句子的主语。所以A项的错误仅仅是没有“that”
...

同意！               

Katthy

adamzjw 发表于 2013-4-12 20:46
1）我感觉OG要表达的意思是，dash的用法有很多种。
如果没有that，你可以理解成后半句是对前面一整句的补充 ...

同意！               

firexxfire

kakadinho 发表于 2013-12-13 00:13
Manhattan 关于破折号的解释：You can use the dash to restate or explain an earlier part of the sent ...

同意！               

An_qi

kakadinho 发表于 2013-12-13 00:13
Manhattan 关于破折号的解释：You can use the dash to restate or explain an earlier part of the sent ...

同意！               

supermario5

这题的焦点，一个在于破折号后的内容是否加that，一个在于comma + v-ing的用法。
（1）我在做这题的时候一开始就先入为主认为“population bottleneck”是专有名词，破折号后应该是对该名词的解释。但是在看完OG解释之后明白，如果破折号后是名词解释，就要用同位语结构即名词性结构：a event that greatly reduced...而不是选项中的一个完整句子。而如果是破折号后是完整句子，则只能理解为在解释前面同样一个完整的句子‘that the genetic...’
（2）comma + v-ing的用法，Ron有总结如下：
Two correct uses of ‘comma + ing’ (Note that the subject of v-ing must be the same as the subject of the closest sentence.):
(1)        to describe a direct and immediate consequence of the action in the clause.
Ex. Ray scored a full mark in a recent exam, bringing his average up to 93 this semester.
(2)        to describe an action that is simultaneous with and subordinate to the action in the preceding clause.
Ex. Ray ran down the sidewalk, flailing his arms.
关键在于括号里那段加粗文字，即v-ing的主语必须与最近的那个句子主语保持一致。因此在这题里reducing的主语只能是逗号前面句子的主语，即our ancestors。结果句意就变成了our ancestors reduced their numbers。祖先们自己减少自己的人口，显然在没有计划生育意识的原始时期这是不可能的。

清酉湘竹2018

V-VING做结果状语没问题，修饰对象是前面的句子，而不是前面句子的主语。所以A项的错误仅仅是没有“that”
ref. https://gmatclub.com/forum/verb-ing-modifier-conceptual-clarity-151205.html

清酉湘竹2018

有没有大牛现身？有同样的疑问，A中的v-ing做结果状语本身是没问题的吧？that不能省略我可以理解了（不然dash后面的内容补充/修饰的啥有歧义）

此题曼哈顿上没有RON的解释。。。哭。。。

lisaxiwm

本来挺明白的 看了楼主的疑问我也开始产生同样的疑问了
前面的解释是说 that是为了消除 ,ving是修饰主句或是从句的ambiguity. 那是不是可以这样说 单看 at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers 就是对的呢？ ---- 根据下帖中的（iii）伴随结果
https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-764753-1-1.html

即单看从句B选项at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event that greatly reduced their numbers
并没有好于A选项at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers？

uuuiiiwww

endsakura 发表于 2013-8-24 17:56
我和楼主简直有同样的疑问，但是现在似乎明白了点儿。是不是that的存在应该取决于意思，如果要解释说明一个 ...

我本来也这么想，主语要合乎后面的逻辑。
但是Manhattan上有这么一个正确的句子
Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.
总不能说是 crime leads to a rise 吧...
还是好纠结