OG13-29 Emily Dickinson E选项和A选项差别求解

whitewoman

Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.

(A)    Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering

(B)    Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ended shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber

(C)    Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and that ends shortly before Emily's death in 1886 and outnumbering

(D)    Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother, ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, and outnumbering

(E)     Dickinson, which were written over a periodbeginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber           

请问为何不能使用A选项，OG给的解释有二。第一个解释说了A选项过度强调了写作时间(... gives too much emphasis to the period when Dickinson's letters were written)，而我们应该强调写作数量，故要选E，但是谁说这句子非要强调数量呢，而且不是说转移强调部分，谓语与非谓语对调的选项是错误的吗。
第二个解释为it is unclear what outnumbering refers to. 这种现在分词作修饰逻辑主语不就是主句主语么，所以应该修饰主句letters，为何有歧义呢

请大神们为我解释一下，感谢之至！

不辣的皮特

贴下ron的解释：this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are tw completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.

examples:
my brother, who ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduated in 1994. --> correct; his eating bagel bites had no impact on his graduation date.
my brother ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduating in 1994. --> incorrect; these are two unrelated observations, but this construction erroneously implies some sort of relationship.

我觉得这题从语法上去解释确实太牵强

胖胖gmat

不辣的皮特 发表于 2013-9-20 22:55
贴下ron的解释：this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in a ...

同意！               

蛋卷酱

Mark一下！               

小猫Mandy

锕儍 发表于 2016-11-18 15:44
我自己对排除A选项的理解

首先我们把中间那部分modifier去掉

这个解释很赞，看完很清晰，谢谢，顶一下

好大一只BAOBAO

想请问一下B选项 Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily’s brother and ended shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber中，这个逗号直接跟 outnumber 是不是也是错误的呀，类似于两个句子直接用逗号连接的那种错误，OG解释中没有提到这一点，想知道如果错误了具体是哪儿种错误~请大神指教~

招拆猫猫拳

这难道不是 简单的图形背景法则吗
这题要表达的图形是OUTNUMBER 而写信超越了数量那个只是背景

triway

RON对A选项的解释如下,主要还是说写信和outnumber这两个行为互相独立，所以不能用outnumbering引出上文的直接or间接结果。不能作伴随前面有人提过了。
this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are two completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.

examples:
my brother, who ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduated in 1994. --> correct; his eating bagel bites had no impact on his graduation date.
my brother ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduating in 1994. --> incorrect; these are two unrelated observations, but this construction erroneously implies some sort of relationship.

考拉飞起

云游 发表于 2013-6-22 12:17
关于V-ing的用法，有一个帖子，楼主请看一下，我觉得挺好。http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-764753-1-1 ...

当前面是主系表De时候，Ving是解释说明的意思

camdd

if you have "X of Y, which..."
then:
* if Y works as the antecedent of "which", then "which" should stand for Y.
* if Y doesn't work as the antecedent, but "X of Y" DOES work, then "which" can stand for "X of Y".

liu兔兔爱大白

不辣的皮特 发表于 2013-9-20 22:55
贴下ron的解释：this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in a ...

同意！