Another PR SC的讨论，关于修饰问题（核心词）

appledandan

i also agree that the point BraveMBA mentioned is a preferrable consideration.

cthd007

Absolutely argree with BraveMBA and appledandan about the order of the consideration.

The reason i didn't mention the part you all concerned is that i don't see any 歧义 when i looked at the choice D & E in this case.

How do i feel?
1.
When i'm looking for the 核心词修饰问题, i'm not only paying attention to 修饰对象的就近修饰or跳跃修饰, but also weighing to the "word" that used to modify 修饰对象. 分词 "stipulated",  in this case. If we dig a little deeper the usage of the "stipulated", It's not hard to find that none of the usage of the "stipulate" can apply to the "industries" in this sentence. There is no ambiguous in this case if you agree with my view so far. If this assumption is right, then "that were" even wordy, because it won't distort the original meaning at all when it was eliminated.  

2. The sentence compares "a recently proposed law" to "a previously proposed law". It should parallel somehow.

3. In 128, OG. The major difference between this one is that the sentence compares the new varieties (exist already) to the earlier ones, so major verb in present tense, and the earlier in past tense (that were to empharase in the past).  However, in this example, "the recently proposed law" (a proposal one)
uses the "would" , it's not necessary to use "that were" to emphasize "a previously proposed law" again.

welcome comments. :-)

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-1 10:25:10编辑过]

remeo

以下是引用cthd007在2003-11-1 6:43:00的发言：
Absolutely argree with BraveMBA and appledandan about the order of the consideration.

The reason i didn't mention the part you all concerned is that i don't see any 歧义 when i looked at the choice D & E in this case.

How do i feel?
1.
When i'm looking for the 核心词修饰问题, i'm not only pay attention to 修饰对象的就近修饰or跳跃修饰, but also weight to the "word" that used to modify 修饰对象, 分词 "stipulated" in this case. If we dig a little deeper the usage of "stipelated", we'll found that none of the usage can be apply industries in this case. There is no ambiguous in thise case if you agree with my view. If this assumption is right, then "that were" even wordy, because it won't distort the original meaning at all when it eliminated.  

2. The sentence compares a recently proposed law to a previously proposed law. It should parallel somehow.
  
3. In 128, OG. The major difference between this one is that the sentence compares the new varieties (exist already) to the earlier ones, so major verb in present tense, and the earlier in past tense (that were).  In this case, the recently proposed law (a proposal one)
uses the "would" , it's not necessary to use "that were" to emphrize a previously proposed law again.

welcome comments. :-)

完全赞同你对这道题的分析。

好一个牛人，真是佩服！

cthd007

remeo, i'm a newcomer, not a NN. Let's learn from each other then.

mjiehu

D套用两个定于从句，wordy

如果要说修饰指代模糊的话，D/E都模糊，反倒是D更容易混淆，因为出现指代词that

appledandan

After carefully analysis, i agree on your reasons listing below.  As far as i am concerned, in this sentence, ETS primarily test the concept of parallelism, on the condition that Ving and clause are both suitable. Just as you mentioned, "a recently proposed law" is parellel to "a previously proposed law". Such usage is concise.  thanks for your valuable detailed analysis.

"2. The sentence compares a recently proposed law to a previously proposed law. It should parallel somehow.
  
3. In 128, OG. The major difference between this one is that the sentence compares the new varieties (exist already) to the earlier ones, so major verb in present tense, and the earlier in past tense (that were).  In this case, the recently proposed law (a proposal one)
uses the "would" , it's not necessary to use "that were" to emphrize a previously proposed law again."