曼哈顿CR5th——第五章加强削弱练习题8 Ethanol Page164

Jez

各位好，有道CR百思不得其解：
CR Strategy Guide 5th Ed
Chapter 5 (strengthen and weaken), Question #8 (Ethanol)-Page 164
答案在Page 179-182
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol, a fuel derived from corn, can be used alone to power cars or along with gasoline to reduce the amount of gas consumed. Unlike gasoline, ethanol is easily renewable since it is primarily converted from the sun's energy. Moreover, compared with conventional gasoline, pure ethanol is a cleaner-burning fuel. To save energy and reduce pollution, many individuals advocate the increased usage of ethanol as a primary fuel source in conjunction with or in place of gasoline.

In evaluating the recommendation to increase the use of ethanol, it would be important to research all of the following EXCEPT:

(A) Whether the energy required to grow and process the corn used as fuel is greater than the amount of energy ultimately produced.
(B) Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline
(C) Whether ethanol is as efficient a fuel as gasoline
(D) Whether it is possible to produce more ethanol than is currently produced
(E) Whether the process of growing corn for fuel would result in as much pollution as does the production of conventional gasoline



Correct answer is (B).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MGMAT的解释：This answer choice uses many of the same words as the conclusion. But that's a trap! The conclusion makes no distinction between these two methods of using ethanol; it just recommends in general that we do use ethanol. If more energy is saved using ethanol in conjunction with gasoline, then the conclusion holds. If more energy is saved using ethanol in place of gasoline, then the conclusion holds. Either way, it's the same thing! There aren't “two paths” here. 而只有“two paths”可以evaluate，所以这道题是B。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

我的问题是对于B选项的理解，
曼哈顿理解是（或者本来就应该理解为）：把“ethanol和gasoline混合”与“纯ethanol”作比较看看哪个更节能，属于irrelevant comparison于是不能evaluate。
我第一遍阅读的时候理解为：把“when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline” 与“when not using ethanol只用gasoline”作比较，所以可以evaluate（因为说明了ethanol确实节能吶）。

其次，假设曼哈顿的理解正确，那么B选项的语法是否有问题（我也查漏补缺一下）？
原句是 Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline
是否应该改为 Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with than in place of gasoline   ？

恳请各位指出我的问题……查了曼哈顿论坛也没有切合的解释要么就是看不明白
十分感谢！！！

humingyi

B选项中Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline实际上并列的是 in conjunction with 和 in place of。
就是说不管是两者并用，还是酒精完全取代汽油，都更节能。
说白了就是，不管咋用，只要用ethanol就比完全不用更节能

Jez

humingyi 发表于 2016-12-19 18:53
B选项中Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline实 ...

谢谢，不过这里有什么语法点吗？如果以后遇见这种怎么分辨在哪两者之间作比较？

humingyi

其实已经很简单直接了，强行要解释的话，Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline。
1：看到or这种标志性的词时，前后找并列。
2：这里的并列是介词短语并列，想要更清晰的理解，你先要明白in conjunction with & in place of这两个phrase的意思，

Jez

humingyi 发表于 2016-12-19 21:11
其实已经很简单直接了，强行要解释的话，Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction ...

嗯呐，这个说法我赞同。可是在原文多次出现ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline这种类似的说法，给人留下他们是compound phrase的感觉 也是我的问题所在，有点被文章误导（？）

陆小鹿

humingyi 发表于 2016-12-19 21:11
其实已经很简单直接了，强行要解释的话，Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction ...

hi~
还是这个whether的问题，我理解 in conjunction with &in place of 的意思，
whether more energy is saved   (when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline)
我的理解是when开始是从句，所以这句话还是再问 whether more energy is saved or not