请问大全25题

sweetcorn

25.A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.
(A) supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that
(B) supporting the theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact
(C) that supports the theory of global forest fires that were ignited by a meteorite impact and that
(D) in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and that
(E) of support for the theory of a meteorite impact that ignited global forest fires and

evidence后常用that的，所以看见that就选了，结果错了

gemj

有THAT的C表达上显得笨拙。“evidence后常用that”这种类似的“公理”还是少用为好。

dreadpower

这是我的整理，正好整理到：

选项A：of错，表示从属关系，of后面是对理论的阐述，明显是并列关系，用that
        划线最后的that多余，contributed to过去分词直接修饰a meteorite impact
选项C：of错，表示从属关系
        修饰混乱，that were ignited by a meteorite impact and that逻辑上修饰global forest fires
        但是原句意思是a meteorite impact导致恐龙灭绝，而不是global forest fires
选项D：介短和分词修饰名词,分词优先，所以in support of错，而且in support of这种表达本身就不对（记得GEMJ曾经说过）
     and that和前面的that并列，但意思上
选项E：乱

KillG8

意思上因该是e，但看起来很罗嗦。那位牛牛给解释一下。

tianwan

1，"contribute to": here contribute is a vi, the phrase means"help to make sth happen". The logic meaning of this sentence is that the fire contributed to the extinction, not that the impact contributed to the extinction.

2, E:"of support for" is unidiomatic;"theory of a impact" distort the meaning; "ignited" and "contributed" are coordinated, so "contributed" modifies "impact",  illogically meaning that impact contributed to teh extinction, wrong.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-4-9 9:49:58编辑过]

quiny

3x

A00A

还是不明白为什么  of 就错了呢

迷惑中

宫小明

其实我觉得B的theory that后面应该加一个句子（forest fires were ignited by...），否则应该用of（后面才是跟名词或者名词性短语）.


不知道肿末回事啊。。。

gabrielpei

个人觉得首先是supporting和that supports都是可以做定语的.
E. evidence of support for sth...这个怎么感觉都不对. of是介词,介词后面没有接动词的. support做名词讲只有支撑物,柱子的意思. 逻辑上不对.

D. the theory that.... and that... 并列的两个从句. 第一个是同位语从句. 第二个是定语从句, 理论上这俩就不能并列. 即使第一个也是定语从句, 可以并列, 第二个从句还原以后就是theory对虾米有贡献. 这个逻辑是不通的.

C. 我的感觉, evidence that...fires that...and that...这个并列就是易于混淆的, 并且三个都是定语从句. GMAT的混淆很多是可以通过句意解决的,但是即使可以解决, 也不是最好的表达方法. 此外, theory of...这里的of是表同位的介词, 从逻辑上来看, 这个theory of ...that...and that...到底是想说什么样的theory? 一般来说是指of后紧跟的这个名词短语本身. 但是实际上这个名词短语本身"global forest fires "并不是一个什么theory. 所以这个逻辑也不算太好. 例如 the theory of relativity, 后面的名词本身就是theory的同位语才好. 如果是后面一个句子来作为theory的同位语, 那theory that还是比较好的. 此外, 白勇的解释-ing做定语表示多次,常态, that clause作定语表示某次,特定,我觉得解释的不算太好. 不过反正也能感觉到一些这个句子不算太好的地方.

B. 一开始觉得fires 后面俩过去分词有点迷惑. 后来发现应该是 fires ignited by(过去分词短语做定语) contributed to(过去时做同位语从句的谓语)... 所以这个结构是没问题的.

A. 最后一个that前面没有and. 和 C,D不一样. 所以A的that定语从句只能就近修饰impact. 假设到这里都没什么问题(因为不想去争论所谓的句意到底应该是fires 还是impact contributed to). 但是如果that 从句是修饰impact的, 那同样的问题, theory是啥? theory又只能是被毁灭了某某的引起的global fires. 而不是这个global fires毁灭了某某的theory. 前后两个逻辑比较一下, 前面内个肯定不如后面这个顺畅. 所以A也不如B.