关于and的疑惑

几许VV

Studies show that young people with higher-than-average blood pressure and their families have a history of high blood pressure are more likely than others to develop a severe form of the condition.

A and their families have a history of high blood pressure

B whose families have a history of high blood pressure

C and a history of high blood pressure runs in the family

D whose families have a history of high blood pressure running in them

E with a history of high blood pressure running in their family
OA：B

LZ选的是C

RON解释的C的错误原因：
1 has one very glaring correctness issue: modifiers NEVER start with "and". the whole thing about the history of high blood pressure has to be a modifier, modifying the young people;

2 not only is this not a modifier (because it starts with "and"), but it doesn't even tell us that we're talking about the young people's families. it merely says "the" family. not acceptable.

3 by the way, the improper use of the conjunction "and" makes (c) not even a sentence at all.


即
1.modifier不能以and开头
2.the family不一定是young people的family，their families更好----->这个LZ懂了
3.and作为连词，让句子run on了

LZ关于and的疑问：
1.如果把and看成将history和blood pressure并列呢？
Studies show that young people with higher-than-average blood pressure and a history of high blood pressure（that) runs in the family are more...

这样第二个modifier就不是以and开头的了呀？and只是连词，其实是with a history.....，with省略了而已。以及pressure后面也省略了一个that

2.and作为连词并不是一定要连接两个句子呀，连接两个并列的elements不就可以了嘛？像上面这样理解的话，就没有run on了呀？

希望有大神解惑嘤！先谢谢啦！

[size=14.007px]

fuckoffand

如果把and 看作是连接higher than avg. blood pressure 和a history of high..，那么runs的主语就变成了young people了，或者起码会造成confusion

而且如果照楼主这么改c的话那就变成young people with higher than average blood pressure and a history of high blood pressure？ 两个说的不是一个意思么。。。。

几许VV

fuckoffand 发表于 2018-11-14 15:24
如果把and 看作是连接higher than avg. blood pressure 和a history of high..，那么runs的主语就变成了you ...

感谢回复！
1. 请问能不能把runs看成修饰high blood pressure的定语从句呢？（省略了that）
2.如果这么改的话，就是young people with higher than average blood pressure and a history of high blood pressure that runs in the family， 就是有高于平均的血压和家族高血压史？

fuckoffand

几许VV 发表于 2018-11-14 15:40
感谢回复！
1. 请问能不能把runs看成修饰high blood pressure的定语从句呢？（省略了that）
2.如果这么改 ...

someone asked the same question in Manhattan forum. quote the Q&A here for your reference:

Hey guys,
Is it possible to interpret C) this way:

Studies show that young people with higher-than-average blood pressure and [with] a history of high blood pressure [that] runs in the family are more likely than others to develop a severe form of the condition

I know that "the family" is wrong, but if we ignore that mistake, will the above sentence be correct? Thanks!

---------------------------

No, that won't work.

1) I can see why you've placed that [which] in there, to suggest that "which is distributed over the compound noun "pressure and a history...." That's fine.

2) The [that], on the other hand, makes no sense. There's no reason to suppose that entire clause introduced by first "that" is in any way parallel to the clause beginning "runs." In fact, the first clause has its ow subject while the second one does not.

3) "A history of high blood pressure that runs in the family" would in any event be at best redundant (if it runs in the family then there's a family history) and probably even nonsensical (the thing that young people have in addition to high blood pressure is... a history of high blood pressure? And other people in their families have had the same history? What?

几许VV

fuckoffand 发表于 2018-11-14 15:49
someone asked the same question in Manhattan forum. quote the Q&A here for your reference:

Hey gu ...

我自己翻了曼哈顿没有找到这个帖子，灰常感谢你！！！

几许VV

fuckoffand 发表于 2018-11-14 15:49
someone asked the same question in Manhattan forum. quote the Q&A here for your reference:

Hey gu ...

想了一下，说 I have a history of high blood pressure 确实很奇怪，那说I have a family history of h.b.p. 是不是就make sense了呢？

蟹黄味蚕豆

第一个问题：
如你所言，with the history ，用with的话，这个修饰成分跟young people的关系就变得松散了（相对于whose来修饰而言），family就不一定是young people的family了。这个不再赘述。

至于那个that省略呢，个人认为，看作是一个省略不是不可以。但是有一个前提是，定语从句的that可以省略。从做到的题目来看，GMAC并不青睐定语从句的省略。所以这个前提下本身有一定的问题，基于这个前提去理解句子，自然也就有一定的不妥。

问题在哪里呢？个人认为，runs，必须看做是一个谓语动词。如果将其看做是定语从句中的谓语动词的话，那么我们每看到一个SVO结构是不是都要考虑这个s后面省略了一个that？这样句子结构就变得要话很多精力去辨识，甚至要去猜了。句子表达就变得不清晰了。这跟GMAC要培养我们准确、精练地表达，并不一致。

第二个问题，实际上就是第一个问题衍生出来的，如果认同了第一个问题的回答，那么第二个问题也就不存在了。

不知道我这么回答，是否能够清晰表达我的意思。

蟹黄味蚕豆

几许VV 发表于 2018-11-14 15:59
想了一下，说 I have a history of high blood pressure 确实很奇怪，那说I have a family history of h. ...

额。。。没有点击到回复你，回复在上一条。

几许VV

蟹黄味蚕豆 发表于 2018-11-14 16:06
第一个问题：
如你所言，with the history ，用with的话，这个修饰成分跟young people的关系就变得松散了（ ...

感谢蚕豆同学的回复～

是的我很同意你说的，我做过的题里也几乎没见过省略that的定语从句～

这一题我没有选B的主要原因是，误以为句意是：有高于平均值的血压和家族高血压史的人比别人（正常人）更容易恶化病情

现在看来句意貌似是：在所有血压高于平均值的人里，那些有家族病史的人比其他（血压偏高但无家族病史的）人更容易恶化病情

不知道我的理解是否和你一样呢？

fuckoffand

几许VV 发表于 2018-11-14 16:16
感谢蚕豆同学的回复～

是的我很同意你说的，我做过的题里也几乎没见过省略that的定语从句～

我觉得应该是在有家族病史的血压高于平均值的年轻人 比 others，其他年轻人。。。