og上一道感觉有歧义的题

frree

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women's property laws.

A.arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
B.arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
C.a treatise that advocates women's equal political and legal rights
D.a treatise advocating women's equal political and legal rights
E.a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women
答案是e。我的疑问就是e答案没有歧义吗？它同时出现了三个for。
有可能是：argued for rights for women and argued for changes
   或者是：argued for rights for women and argued for rights for changes

希望大家解答一下

formath

首先，出现几个for和句子是否有歧义不存在必然关系。
for rights 和 for changes 是argued的两个并列具体内容，上面你提到的第二种理解应该对多个and连接内容的逻辑关系没有区分清楚。
个人观点，供参考。

tulane老司机

从语义来讲，第二种并列是完全讲不通的，而gmat默认如果一种并列完全从语义上无法讲通的话，出现这一类的疑似并列也就不会造成ambiguity，E的正确的意思是“为女性政治法律权利arguing，和为已婚女性财产法的改变arguing”，而你说的第二种，意思变成了“为女性政治法律权利arguing，和为已婚女性财产法的改变的政治法律权利arguing，”后者在gmat看来是完全不会造成ambiguity的，changes 和rights是并列的，而非rights for women 和rights for changes，所以E没什么问题。