OG 234

我爱宝宝

(D)中的it是指代wavelength没错, 只是语法上指代没错, 逻辑上指代却错误.....至于OG里头的解释是写的太简洁, 我们可以把furthermore那句当成对上句的补充......

it仍然优先指代本句主语，但有可能在此过程中发生逻辑指代错误，例如成为其后动词的错误逻辑主语，这样，这个it就发生了a kind of imprise problem，所以，错.

请牛牛指正。

Andrea625

把错误答案D代入后：The physical structure of the human eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters; however, because the wavelength of infrared radiation is 0.1 millimeters, it is too long for the eye to register and thus invisible.

1、如说it指代the wavelength of infrared radiation ，指代清晰没问题；则，thus invisible就不合逻辑了，因为看见看不见都是说红外线的，不是说看见看不见波长。2、如果说thus invisible是对的，那就是说it指代的是infrared radiation ，这在语法上讲it又对了，因为在句子里语法上讲指代的不是infrared radiation。你所说的矛盾。

我是不是理解了你10楼的意思？

11楼说的是对的。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-6-28 19:11:24编辑过]

liu_9000

以下是引用晓路在2004-4-14 19:55:00的发言：

不过这道题怎么都感觉有点别扭，眼睛register波长而不是波本身？

为什么眼睛register波长而不是波本身？这属于生物概念？

liu_9000

up

jefferyli

(A) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long to be registered by the eye.
I feel confused, even about answer A. Gramatically, wavelength is registed by the eye, however, logically, radiation should be registered by the eye. To correct it, ETS should change it to something as below:

infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long for the eye to register the radiation.

for discussing...

goodgoodstudy

same question, up!

xionghuixh

D中应该it语法上可以是指wavelength,但作invisible 的agent又不合逻辑,所以 it的子代有点不清

xionghuixh

B中的IT子代就没有子代不清

wwwhahchn

C中的it为什么不是指代infrared radiation？这样不是既符合逻辑，又和its wavelength中的its保持一致？

wwwhahchn

继续问！！