OG 12-7(已解决)

abjure

7. As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has
become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

Agreement; Rhetorical construction
When a number of words intervene between a pronoun and its referent, an error such as the one
in this sentence is easy to make. Th e subject of the main clause is the singular noun company, so the
pronoun referring to the company must also be singular. Even if the company might be thought
of as referring to the members of a business, the singular verb (has become increasingly willing)
establishes that the noun is singular in this sentence.
A Plural pronoun they does not agree with singular the company.
B Plural pronouns they and their do not agree with the company.
C Previously repeats the idea of in the past; the passive-voice construction in this context is weak and ambiguous.
D Th e placement of in the past makes it unclear whether it is supposed to modify rivals or
would have conceded; if the latter, then it is redundant.
E Correct. In this concise sentence, the singular pronoun it agrees with the singular referent the company.

The correct answer is E.

其他选项答案明白，我对D/E 选项 in the past 的时间状语 到底修饰哪个对象， 也不明白为啥要把OG D选项解释in the past 修饰would have conceded 就是多余？
同类涉及时间状语还包括 例如OG 3A;OG 50C; OG70 B/E; 我个人总结时间副词紧放在所修饰动词后面。不知道这个理解是否正确，望NN解答。 谢谢。

其他相关该题其他考点讨论连接如下供大家一起学习：
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_SC/thread-403910-1-1.html?SearchText=OG%2012%207

myungryong

previously 和 in the past 语义上的重复 因此多余

abjure

谢谢LS 提醒， 还是看漏眼啦。
（1）如果D选项没有previously， 大家觉得D/E是否有区别吗？

（2）同类涉及时间状语在句中位置的题目还包括 例如OG 3A;OG 50C; OG70 B/E; 我个人总结时间副词紧放在所修饰动词后面。不知道这个理解是否正确？望NN解答。 谢谢。

myungryong

(1) D 即便没previously 也是错的
从The placement of in the past makes it unclear whether it is supposed to modify rivals or would have conceded
in the past 有歧义

abjure

谢谢LS。。。按照你的说法，时间状语不可以放在句末？因为时间状语（in the past）在句末，可能修饰谓语动词，也可能修饰宾语。。。。

关于同类涉及时间状语在句中位置的题目还包括 例如OG 3A;OG 50C; OG70 B/E; 我个人总结时间副词紧放在所修饰动词后面。不知道这个理解是否正确？望NN解答。 谢谢。
可否有童鞋忙帮给个链接关于时间状语在句中位置的链接学习下？

abjure

顶起，再问. 谢谢

jtrchina

如果D选项没有previously， 大家觉得D/E是否有区别吗？
有。in the past既可修饰conceded ，又可修饰rivals。
原则：修饰语应尽量靠近被修饰对象。
如：
I am writting this post to abjure for making clear the effective use of modifiers to do some help in 2010.
字面意思很好理解，然而单从语法上讲：
1.for making clear 既可修饰我的目的，也可以将abjure的目的，更严密的表述方法应该为：for making clear the effective use of modifiers,I am writting this post to abjure.
2.同理，to do some help也表目的，然而光从语法角度考虑可以向前修饰I、abjure、甚至是use 或modifiers，产生了一堆歧义。
3.最后的in 2010尤甚。几乎可以向前修饰任何一处，让人对于该时间修饰的正确放置颇感费解与莫名。
所以，修饰语应尽量靠近被修饰对象。不然句子一长其修饰的对象就变得模糊不清，模棱两可。

hope it helps!

abjure

呵呵，太感谢了！！!

aary431

如果D选项没有previously， 大家觉得D/E是否有区别吗？
有。in the past既可修饰conceded ，又可修饰rivals。
原则：修饰语应尽量靠近被修饰对象。
如：
I am writting this post to abjure for making clear the effective use of modifiers to do some help in 2010.
字面意思很好理解，然而单从语法上讲：
1.for making clear 既可修饰我的目的，也可以将abjure的目的，更严密的表述方法应该为：for making clear the effective use of modifiers,I am writting this post to abjure.
2.同理，to do some help也表目的，然而光从语法角度考虑可以向前修饰I、abjure、甚至是use 或modifiers，产生了一堆歧义。
3.最后的in 2010尤甚。几乎可以向前修饰任何一处，让人对于该时间修饰的正确放置颇感费解与莫名。
所以，修饰语应尽量靠近被修饰对象。不然句子一长其修饰的对象就变得模糊不清，模棱两可。

hope it helps!

-- by 会员 jtrchina (2010/5/14 16:20:17)

这位NN将得好具体哦、\(^o^)/

cenco

小子受教了！！！