OG 141 题目有误，限定从句

vivian_huang

以下是引用LES在2004-4-29 15:12:00的发言：

Typo, confirmed by ETS!

Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and
their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.

My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in
light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is
entirely justified:  there is a printing error in question 141, option C.
Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and
there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate
your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question
for future editions of the Guide.

Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We
are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us
to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.

翻到第二页才看到这个，N,真N!!!!!

为所有锲而不舍，生命不息，专研不息的Cders喝彩！！！大家都该看看！！！

nuj_am

以下是引用LES在2004-4-29 15:12:00的发言：

Typo, confirmed by ETS!

Thank you for your inquiry regarding two Sentence Correction questions and
their explanations in The Official Guide for GMAT Review.

My colleagues and I have examined the questions and their explanations in
light of your inquiry, and we have determined that your confusion is
entirely justified:  there is a printing error in question 141, option C.
Nonrestrictive clauses should indeed be set off by parenthetical commas, and
there should therefore be a comma after "twins" in option C. We appreciate
your calling this error to our attention, and we will revise the question
for future editions of the Guide.

Thank you very much for taking the time to share your concern with us. We
are always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us
to improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.

去年看这个帖子的时候还没有入门, 一年后的今天再看, 真是一扫阴霾, 鼓舞士气啊!

LES太牛了!

kare0011

谢谢谢谢，这下对限定性定语从句和非限定性定于从句有了深刻理解了

jonathan1987

牛

jessie0317

前辈们好牛

俺好感动。。。

songlovegt

向前辈致敬

人乙

楼上这样说的话··答案岂不是A？

Mayanist

以下是引用gemj在2003-11-24 0:31:00的发言：
好象不是特指与泛指的区别吧？
我的理解是，介词短语与从句修饰的意思不一样：
twins with the same genetic endowment
翻成汉语的意思是：具有相同基因构成的同卵双胞胎。
言外之意是还有“不具有相同基因构成的同卵双胞胎。”

而
involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment
的意思是：涉及同卵双胞胎，而（同卵双胞胎）具有相同基因构成。
也就是定语从句是对其修饰对象的解释，而非限定。
或者说定语从句是与其修饰对象可以划等号，而介词短语却不可以。

顶！牛人讲解就是清晰。

Mayanist

以下是引用gmatchenaimin在2003-12-7 15:06:00的发言：
其实是限定性修饰 和 非限定性修饰的区别
所谓限定性修饰, 有定语从句, 分词短语, 介词短语等, 特证是和被修饰的对象紧连没有逗号隔开. 功能是限定被修饰对象
如: identical twins with the same genetic endowment: 具有相同基因特性的双胞胎

非限定性修饰, 有同位语从句, 非限定性定语从句, 名词短语等, 特佂是一定有逗号隔开, 功能是对被修饰对象起说明解释作用, 可以去掉非限定性修饰而不影响要表达的主要意思.
如上面的例子:Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same: 与双胞胎之间的器官移植不同, (他们具有相同的基因特征), ......

所以有泛指和特指之说

牛人层出不穷！

Mayanist

以下是引用atasl在2003-12-11 17:22:00的发言：
对这道题我不解的就在于此。ets明明说C中：“a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.” 可在C中的“who have..." 之前根本没逗号，没逗号能叫”nonrestrictive clause”吗？是不是印刷错误？

细心是解决SC之根本 : )