885-s1-19

brissa

以下是引用tony6在2004-6-5 11:19:00的发言：

OG中关于此题的解释：Choice B does not make clear whether vast amounts is supposed to describe money only or money and staff members, and in choice C it is not certain whether vast modifies amounts only or amounts and numbers.

我的问题是，1。B中有neither......nor来隔开，vast amount应该不会造成歧义呀

2。vast不能修饰可数吗？

请问斑竹你下载的是哪个版本的OG，为什么我在CD上下载的OG就没有关于大全的解释呢？

我也想要大全的英文解释啊。

weichenli

up up~~

i thought sec 1-9 is from XDF, how can people get OG explanation?

weichenli

up up~~

i thought sec 1-9 is from XDF, how can people get OG explanation?

无尾小恶魔

不是的，是OG里的题~~我记得，但不记得具体哪题了；如果是新东方的，我肯定不知道，最讨厌作新东方的题目！

无尾小恶魔

a large=a large mumber of????

哪位NN查到了？？杂志上的例句不算哦~~要academic writing 的 article 才可以

livary

没法做了

hawkinsxie

a large staf,习惯用语,一了百了!

老外这种题绝对不会做错，中国人学了语法，学了平行并列，往往忽视了基本的语感。

对于B，C：

... amounts of moeny nor staff members 在OG类似题中已经讲过了。

neither vast amounts of money nor numbers of staff members 从并列角度来说，neither和nor后面都相互是独立并列的，不可能用neither后的vast来形容nor后的东西。

aborigin

以下是引用sandiegotj在2005-8-17 15:51:00的发言：

有一点不太同意7楼的mm

在牛津高阶字典里就有这样的例句：

Considerable numbers of (ie very many) animals have died.

另外在白勇的《语法全解》里面40页的46题也使用了vast numbers of humans来表示很多人

但是c肯定还是不对的，vast的修饰对象不同会有歧义。

同意sandiegotj的说法，在电子版的Longman Dictionary of Contemporay English里，关于Vast的词条

adj    1. extremely large                -synonym huge                    vast amounts/numbers/quantities/sums etc (of something)
    The govermment will have to borrow vast amounts of money.
    The refugees come cross the border in vast numbers
则Vast修饰numbers 应该没问题，只是后面的stuff members有问题。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-9 17:33:46编辑过]

cattsky

C错在哪里呢？

比起D太罗嗦？

gonghao

In choice A, amount of … staff members is incorrect; amount properly refers to an undifferentiated mass, as in the case of money. Choice B does not make clear whether vast amounts is supposed to describe money only or money and staff members, and in choice C it is not certain whether vast modifies amounts only or amounts and numbers. Choice D is best. Choice E cannot fit grammatically into the original sentence because it supplies no noun that can function as a subject for the verb can. This question is a little more difficult than the average.