[求助] og16 31题

木子考拉

31. The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can, in part, be explained as a very rapid movement of people from one end of North America to the other.
(A) The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can, in part, be explained as
(B) Thule artifacts being remarkably similar throughout a vast region, one explanation is
(C) That Thule artifacts are remarkably similar throughout a vast region is, in part, explainable as
(D) One explanation for the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region is that there was
(E) Throughout a vast region Thule artifacts are remarkably similar, with one explanation for this being 答案是D 没问题


这是OG解答


Logical predication; Grammatical construction; Rhetorical construction The intended meaning of the sentence is that the rapid movement of people across North America is one explanation of the similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region. As worded, however, the sentence is illogical: The sentence indicates that the similarity in artifacts was a rapid movement of people, which makes no sense. Instead of equating similarity with movement, the sentence needs to identify this movement of people as a cause of similarity among artifacts.
A  As worded, this version of the sentence makes the illogical statement that the similarity among artifacts is explainable as a very rapid movement. It should specify that the similarity of artifacts may be a consequence of the rapid population movement.
B This version of the sentence is syntactically awkward, and leaves unclear what the main subject, one explanation is supposed to be an explanation of.
C Like (A), this version of the sentence equates the similarity of artifacts with the movement of people, when a causal connection is what is intended. D Correct. This version adequately expresses the intended causal connection.
E This version is awkward, introducing the causal connection with the unnecessarily wordy and indirect string of prepositional phrases, with one explanation for this. . . .




1.为什么OG上对A的句意解释是 “相似是迁移的结果”   我理解的A的句意是  “相似是迁移”  这二者有什么区别吗?  是不是as的意思导致了解读句意的不同，OG解释AS做‘因为’的意思，而我理解的as 是当 ‘作为’ 的意思   到底应该是那种呀？
2.关于B选项，有NN能解释一下吗？虽然知道他不对，可是就是不知道怎么说它到底如何错的，OG解答完全不理解的样子。    关于B选项前面这个修饰语还有些疑惑，being前面的 Thule artifacts 在语法结构上是做什么的，暗示了什么。这个可以把这个Thule artifacts being remarkably similar throughout a vast region当initial modifier来看吗？ Being在这里到底是什么性质？


跪求解答呀！！！！！！跪求有人能详细分析一下B选项！如果有相关知识点就更好啦！！！！！

木子考拉

自己顶一个，求帮助呀求帮助

木子考拉

求解答 谢谢大家啦

木子考拉

还是没有人吗？

bestofkattun

非牛，只是说下自己的理解
A中，把修饰成分去掉看的话，整句话的主谓是:the remarkable similarity can be explained as a very rapid movement. 相似性是移动 。这个逻辑意思是很奇怪的。而D中说：对于这种相似性的解释是因为之前出现过一个人口迁徙。把这种awkward的逻辑意思avoid掉了。
B中，一般在GMAT的语法中，being总是显得awkward,除非遇到介词+being adj./adv.或者is/was being done 这种表示被动的正在进行的话，轻易不要选
另外，假设B是对的，则one explanation应该是句子主语，前面那个如果是独立主格的话，先不说being奇怪，前面一句也不能理解为是对后面一句条件/原因的补充

bestofkattun

非牛，只是说下自己的理解
A中，把修饰成分去掉看的话，整句话的主谓是:the remarkable similarity can be explained as a very rapid movement. 相似性是移动 。这个逻辑意思是很奇怪的。而D中说：对于这种相似性的解释是因为之前出现过一个人口迁徙。把这种awkward的逻辑意思avoid掉了。
B中，一般在GMAT的语法中，being总是显得awkward,除非遇到介词+being adj./adv.或者is/was being done 这种表示被动的正在进行的话，轻易不要选
另外，假设B是对的，则one explanation应该是句子主语，前面那个如果是独立主格的话，先不说being奇怪，前面一句也不能理解为是对后面一句条件/原因的补充, 从而就无从说明one explanation到底是explain for what了

快乐女孩

我很想问下C，THAT 引导了一个主语从句，所以is是对的呀，that引导的主语从句表示一个事，这个事被解释为后面的内容，怎么不对了呢？避免了A中similarity 与 movement 错。

kwyang

张风儿 发表于 2015-12-11 19:55
对C存在疑惑

我當初也錯選C
但重看Manhattan後 覺得這個AS是其中所說的preposition as，
前開應為「function」 as; 「equation」 as; 「stage」 as 中的「equation」 as
而無論A（相似性）或C（T工藝品在一個廣泛區域內的顯著相似性）選項的句意（「等同」people的快速遷移）都不可能是對的
所以OG才會說AC應為因果關係（因為快速遷移而造成相似性的結果）而均為錯誤選項
希望有幫上忙，如有錯誤歡迎指正～

小镜子儿

C选项我不是特别会解释但是B我觉得错的很明显
(B) Thule artifacts being remarkably similar throughout a vast region, one explanation is
第一个分句，名词+V-ing，只有可能是独立主格或者是同位语，如果是独立主格，那么应该修饰整个句子，逻辑不对，看上去最有可能是同位语，那么如果是同位语就是修饰下一个句子的one explanation，也不对。

qingqing8982

小镜子儿 发表于 2016-1-9 20:51
C选项我不是特别会解释但是B我觉得错的很明显
(B) Thule artifacts being remarkably similar throughout a ...

不好意思 我对B选项的答案解释中还有个疑问: OG说B中one explanation is supposed to be an explanation of, 为什么说应该为an explanation of 呢？求解答，谢谢！