[讨论] 一道逻辑题中的语法分析

lpdeng

先贴上原题

140. A report on acid rain concluded, “ Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain.” Critics of the report insist the conclusion be changed to, “Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain, such as abnormal loss of leaves, slower rates of growth, or higher mortality.”

Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics’ insistence that the report’s conclusion be changed?
    

(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.

(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible. 

(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries.  

(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.

(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.

答案是b。 我的疑问也是b。 

1.为什么要用could be causing, 而不是could cause呢？

2. which 是否引导的介词for的宾语从句？ 那which在从句中做的什么成份呢？

谢谢讨论解疑！

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-3 11:05:49编辑过]

zliycwn1

其实。。。我觉得很多阅读里也出现了which形容不紧密的情况

所以...也许逻辑的语法结构也并不是很严谨

不过这句话是好别扭 有谁知道？

lpdeng

以下是引用zliycwn1在2008-9-3 11:07:00的发言：

其实。。。我觉得很多阅读里也出现了which形容不紧密的情况

所以...也许逻辑的语法结构也并不是很严谨

不过这句话是好别扭 有谁知道？

恩， 也许语法题考的都是最标准的文法。 可能在实际运用中（逻辑体， 阅读）就会有很多不完全标准的用法吧. 

@_@

AlienX

umm...不要從CR/RC上看語法...因為CR/RC在句子上的用法都不strict...

lpdeng

以下是引用AlienX在2008-9-5 12:43:00的发言：
umm...不要從CR/RC上看語法...因為CR/RC在句子上的用法都不strict...

恩！  谢谢提醒。 ：）

可能是看语法看的走火入魔， 所以在看逻辑的时候也忍不住开始分析 @_@