ving修饰问题

Spencer125

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

(B) evidence gathered by scientists suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than had been

(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than

(D) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that which was

(E) scientists have gathered evidence which suggests amuch earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that

evidence

答案是C，   A中OG给的解释是suggesting既可以修饰scientists又可以修饰evidence引出了歧义。那么按照这种理解，正确答案Csuggesting不是也可以说既修饰scientists又修饰evidence而错了吗？？？？？

Laurielin

首先，这个题A的致命点不在于suggesting，而是主语错误，主语应该是Scientists
那么句子想表达的是Scientists suggesting 而A 选项却成不知道suggesting到底在修饰谁
（A其实是因为主语错了，所以才会有修饰歧义的）
C选项中suggsting的修饰是没有歧义的,和digging一样都是修饰scientists

Spencer125

Laurielin 发表于 2013-7-29 14:57
首先，这个题A的致命点不在于suggesting，而是主语错误，主语应该是Scientists
那么句子想表达的是Scienti ...

这一点，我知晓，但我纠结的是我那个问题。

Laurielin

嗯 你那个问题也回答了 OG的解释没有错A选项确实有修饰歧义，但是C没有~

Spencer125

Laurielin 发表于 2013-7-29 15:44
嗯 你那个问题也回答了 OG的解释没有错A选项确实有修饰歧义，但是C没有~

但，以前有人总结说  “ S+V+O ving” 这种句型，ving可以修饰O，也可以修饰S。所以C选项也可以修饰evidence呀？这不和修饰scientist产生了歧义吗？

Spencer125

helppppppppppppppppp~

Laurielin

好吧~~注意看未划线部分previously thought
所以说明主语只能是科学家~~
suggesting that 没有歧义---C

而且A我又仔细看了OG的解释~引起歧义不在于V+O+ING结构（这个总结没看到过诶）而在于被动语态

hfwang

OG的解释要从GMAC的角度看。它既要让读者明白为什么某个选项不对，但又不会把GMAT考的rule明明白白地列出来，所以有时候看上去自相矛盾。这一题的A和C，v-ing都是修饰前面的名词，而且是限定性的。A之所以不对是它的意思不合理。因为suggesting在A中修饰科学家，所以整个句子就变成

证据被那些暗示着复杂生命体的出现比他们原先想象的要早很多的科学家们收集到了。

换句话说，就是

那些暗示复杂生命体的出现比他们原先想象的要早很多的科学家们收集到了证据。

啥证据？没说。

C中suggesting修饰证据，意思是
科学家们收集到了暗示着复杂生命体的出现比原先想象的要早很多的证据。

啥科学家？没说。

你看看哪种说法更合理。

enkyklios

同意hfwang同学说的，

hfwang

enkyklios 发表于 2013-7-30 02:21
同意hfwang同学说的，

谢谢大N支持