这道题，大家来看看原因。

qiqi_cola

Research during the past several decades on the nature of language and the processes that produce and make it understandable has revealed great complexity instead of underlying simplicity.
(A) that produce and make it understandable has revealed great complexity instead of underlying simplicity
(B) of producing and understanding it have revealed not underlying simplicity but great complexity
(C) by which it is produced and understood has revealed not underlying simplicity but great complexity
(D) by which it is produced and understood have revealed great complexity rather than underlying simplicity
(E) by which one produces and understands it have revealed great complexity instead of underlying simplicity

答案是A 两个疑问： 1， 主动比被动好？  还是以为 INSTEAD OF 比C的 NOT， BUT好？

gemj

主动当然比被动好，INSTEAD OF并不比NOT， BUT好，但这个题目的关键还是在于C有逻辑错误。请看帖子：
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&replyID=95735&ID=14367&skin=1

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-10-22 10:22:32编辑过]

mjiehu

are you sure the answer is A?

gemj

以下是引用mjiehu在2003-10-22 10:21:00的发言：
are you sure the answer is A?

是的，比较确定。

mjiehu

i cannot see any logic problem with C
instead there is something missing in A
" the processes that produce??? and make it understandable"

mjiehu

what's wrong with C then?

gemj

以下是引用gemj在2003-9-10 16:58:00的发言：
我又好好想了想，还是老安说的有道理。
对C的正确理解是：语言被过程创造出来并被过程所理解。
的确不通。
还是老安厉害，我没白崇拜你一场啊。现在就剩下produce and make it understandable这个结了，ETS的用意、居心到底何在？

谢谢mzyzhu又帮我搞懂了一个词的用法，但你还是没有解释为何少了个IT啊？

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-9-10 17:06:21编辑过]

mjiehu

I got the answer
There cannot be and "it" after "produce", "the processes that produce" implies "the performance of the language" or simply "the language", the "it" which follows the verb "make" refer to "The nature of language", because, here, "the nature of language" & "the processes that produce" are two equivalent noun phrases, and due to the fact that "processes" takes on a plural form, the "it" could only refer to "the nature of language"

Otherwise, if another "it" is added behind "produce", the two "it"s will both refer to "the nature of language", it is true that "the nature" could be "understood", but to say "the nature" could be "produced" is totally unacceptable.

gemj

但如果把make it 中的IT也理解为language 呢？
这样好象更符合逻辑。

mjiehu

the problem is that there is simply no "language" in the sentence, only "the nature of language" and an equivalent phrase "the processes that produce" there