ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

正确答案: C

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 12011|回复: 16
打印 上一主题 下一主题

prep1-69:with intent of doing还是to do

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2008-10-10 21:24:00 | 只看该作者

prep1-69:with intent of doing还是to do

我看过的大部分情况下都是with the intent to do sth.,但此题选C,而C中用的是of doing,难道两者皆可以么?请高人指点

The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

(A) passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

(B) the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell

(C) the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling

(D) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell

(E) the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling


[此贴子已经被作者于2008-10-25 7:09:43编辑过]
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2008-10-11 02:47:00 | 只看该作者

自己顶一顶,希望哪位高人指点哦

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2008-10-15 03:48:00 | 只看该作者

顶顶,别沉了~

地板
发表于 2008-10-15 04:06:00 | 只看该作者
umm...prep有的話, 代表GMAC接受such usage...
5#
 楼主| 发表于 2008-10-25 07:10:00 | 只看该作者

那我们是不是在平时使用时依旧以to do 为主呢

6#
 楼主| 发表于 2008-10-25 07:10:00 | 只看该作者

那我们是不是在平时使用时依旧以to do 为主呢

7#
发表于 2008-10-25 10:16:00 | 只看该作者

考点: 逻辑表达(Logical Predication

1) 动名词结构含有正在进行的意思,多表示动作的过程

2) 修饰语应该尽可能靠近修饰对象,否则很容易引起修饰不清

3) of + doing修饰名词而to do结构修饰动词,表示目的

(A) 从逻辑意思上看The proliferation…导致的结果是反域名强占保护法案的通过,而不是通过的过程,

因此passing应该改为passage,强调结果.in 1999__________可能修饰Act也可能修饰passing,导致修饰不清;

分词结构allowing…修饰有歧义。

(B) in 1999位置不对,导致修饰不清;with the sole intent that they will sell表达复杂,笨拙.

(C) 正确, lead to the passage强调了结果;which非限定定语从句修饰Act,意思表达清楚;时间状语in

1999紧靠修饰对象the passage,修饰无歧意;of selling修饰名词intent表达正确

(D) 从逻辑意思上看,The proliferation…导致的结果是法案的通过,而不是导致了法案,因此lead to the

Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999意思表达不完整;with the

sole intent to sell错误,应该改为with the sole intent of selling.

(E) 错误同D,逻辑意思表达不完整

句子结构: The proliferation led to the passageofAct, which allows companies to

补充说明:

要注意不要将with the sole intent to sell误认为是to do结构表示目的. to do结构修饰的是动词,如果修

饰名词的话应该用A of B结构.with the sole intent没有动词出现,所以应该用of selling来修饰名词

intent

8#
 楼主| 发表于 2008-10-28 18:07:00 | 只看该作者

楼上的你这段在prep的解释也写过,此题选C无异议,问题在于,你说to do 结构修饰的是动词,那么对于

The swindler sold the house with
                intent
                to cheat her.
 中,你是不是意思to cheat 是修饰sold的?照你这么说我也可以说to sell是修饰register的了,怎么能说没有动词呢?

可见你的补充解释并不正确

9#
发表于 2010-3-18 09:57:08 | 只看该作者
这题也是我想问的

intent 的用法,为什么to do是错误的?
10#
发表于 2010-6-26 11:34:14 | 只看该作者
顶顶,同问
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-9-21 03:13
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部