ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

正确答案: E

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 5099|回复: 10
打印 上一主题 下一主题

OG 13 SC 40 A/B/C选项的解释求教

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2013-8-16 08:54:17 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
求各位大神指导!!~
40. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of nextyear, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim outputby a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

(A) year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output

(B) year, but only if the output of non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, is trimmed

(C) year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, would be trimmed

(D) year only if non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trimming output

(E) year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output

A项解释中提到:
were to in front of trim does not add anything more in meaning,为什么说“does not add anything more in meaning ”呢?
其次,说were to is not the proper verb form to accompany will pare 是因为一个是过去将来时、一个是将来时?

B项解释中提到:
this use( ...is trimmed) of the passive voice makes this sentence vague; it is now unclear who needs to trim the output of non-OPEC nations
为什么就vague,unclear了呢?那么具体会出现哪些歧义呢?

C项解释中提到:
would in front of the passive verb be trimmed is redundant 为什么"would" 会redundant呢?

谢谢各位大神了!!!


收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2013-8-16 12:57:14 | 只看该作者
先说C

Manhattan语法书不知你是否读过
第7章明确指明if从句中不能有would或should
原句是 The helping verb would and should should never go in the if part of the sentence.
给你几个例句

If Sophie eats pizza, she becomes ill.
If Sophie eats pizza, she may become ill.
If Sophie eats pizza tomorrow, she will become ill.
If Sophie has eaten pizza tomorrow, she will become ill.
Hypothetical Subjunctive: If Sophie ate pizza tomorrow, she would become ill.
Hypothetical Subjunctive: If Sophie had eaten pizza yesterday, she would have become ill.
板凳
发表于 2013-8-16 12:58:14 | 只看该作者
再说B
能用主动表达清楚的 就不要被动

相信如果你做了2遍OG的话 会对一些因为被动表达不如主动而排除某些选项的题目
地板
发表于 2013-8-16 13:06:55 | 只看该作者
最后说A
does not add anything more in meaning
我先问你知道will 和 be to的区别吗?
如果你说不知道 那是正常的 因为除了美国人都不知道
如果你问一个美国人 下面几组词组的区别是什么?

不齿·不耻
勾通·沟通
定金·订金
预定·预订
作客·做客
质疑·置疑
义气·意气
本义·本意
功夫·工夫
牟取·谋取
巨变·剧变
法制·法治
自诩·自许
勉励·勉力
处世·处事
形迹·行迹
原形·原型
年轻·年青
连播·联播
终止·中止
捉摸·琢磨
妨害·妨碍
变换·变幻
供品·贡品
淹没·湮没
泄漏·泄露
树立·竖立


在美国学了20年汉语的美国人也不知道
这就是为什么我们不知道will与 be to 的区别

因为GMAT是面向全世界的,美国人也要考GMAT
中国一年才有多少人考GMAT
OG是写给美国人的 是写给全世界的 而不是写给中国人的


比如我是某汉语考试的编者,某题应该填“勉励” 而不是“勉力” 我需要在答案解析中说明原因 但是原因我心里清楚 可臣妾写不出啊
我们中国人都知道啊 这句话用“勉力”错啊 但天这么热我还要回家陪孩子我懒得翻字典啊 我就会写上一句 “勉力does not add anything more in meaning ”


5#
发表于 2013-8-16 13:07:58 | 只看该作者
说were to is not the proper verb form to accompany will pare 是因为一个是过去将来时、一个是将来时
这一点你理解是正确的
6#
 楼主| 发表于 2013-8-16 14:24:58 | 只看该作者
吴下锕蒙 发表于 2013-8-16 13:07
说were to is not the proper verb form to accompany will pare 是因为一个是过去将来时、一个是将来时
这 ...

谢谢啦!
那个,我没有看过曼哈顿语法,只看了白勇语法。31号就要考试了,有必要看曼哈顿吗?
还是把白勇多复习几遍比较好?我OG、白勇都只刚看完一遍
7#
发表于 2013-8-17 09:20:12 | 只看该作者
lizzieff 发表于 2013-8-16 14:24
谢谢啦!
那个,我没有看过曼哈顿语法,只看了白勇语法。31号就要考试了,有必要看曼哈顿吗?
还是把白勇 ...

Manhattan语法书适合语法复习初期看。
不知道你做Prep07或08语法正确率如何?如果能到60-70% 我觉得语法就说得过去;
不到的话,
如果你时间充沛,一天4小时,一周的时间足以看完Manhhtan原书
如果不充沛,可以看一些别人总结的Manhattan语法,但看别人总结的终究不如自己细细地读一遍原书;

也可以一战后到二战之间可以细读Manhattan
8#
发表于 2013-9-22 10:39:44 | 只看该作者
Since the non-underlined sentence is future tense - "will pare", the underlined portion must include simple present in the "if" clause. And hence Choice E is correct "trim output"

Why other choices are incorrect?

Choice A - if ..were.., then ..will pare? => which is incorrect. If were, then would. Also, but appears to be redundant with "if" already present to express the condition.

Choice B - "is trimmed" - is passive construction. Should avoid passive construction since non-underlined portion is in active voice. "the group will pare.."

Choice C - "would be trimmed" - is passive construction. Same reasoning as B. In addition, since the non-underlined sentence is future tense - "will pare", the underlined portion must include simple present in the "if" clause and not past tense.

Choice D - "were trimming" - is incorrect since past tense is incorrect and furthermore continuous tense does not make sense in this context.
9#
发表于 2013-10-11 10:06:00 | 只看该作者
在only if 这个短语中,副词only是中心词,而从属连接词if
则只是用来连接
从句的,因此,它表示“只有……(才);只有在……的时候,唯一的条件是
……”的意思。例如:   I told him he would succeed only if he tried hard. 我告诉他只有努力才能成功。  2. only if 有时也写成only...if,表示唯一的条件,但是意思不变。例如:   I will only come home if you come with me. (= I will come home only if you come with me.) 只有你跟我一起走,我才回家。

后面跟的是 一般现在时。

trim的意思是整理的意思 主语是non-OPEC nations所以可以是直接主动语态 不需要被动语态。
10#
发表于 2013-12-13 11:04:27 | 只看该作者
首先明确,这里only if相当于主从连词,后面引导一个从句,那么用并列连词but把一个主语和一个从句连接起来是绝对错误的;OG说加上but没有任何意义就是因为这里已经存在主从连词连接一个主句和一个从句了,你干嘛还要再用一个并列连词呢?这样干掉AB,同时,be to是不可以表示将来的,也能干掉A

原句but之后的部分,其实是一个if...then...结构,then经常被省略,同时would/should不可以出现在if引导的从句中,干掉C;本题的应用 if+一般现在时,(then)+一般将来时,那么就是E
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-16 19:15
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部