刚考完，感觉语法的实战和PREP不是一个套路！请大家解惑！！

LUCIE_SIMON

我已经快二战了，但是我对于一战的感觉和楼主的感觉很像啊~~语法考前感觉很好，但是到了真正考的时候发现完全不一样，决定不是一眼就可以看出来的，也不是能光靠语法点就选出来的~~而且划线很短，要么就是全划线。。。

flyflyhappy

同楼上一样 就是划线不长 靠语法点什么都判断不出来

不像以前的PREP破解 还有点规律

AlienX

umm...現在考點比較隠密...語法不會變太多....始終是英語...

xiaodouzi1

完了，今天上来第一个贴就被吓到了。

小小西

完了，本来语法就是弱项...28号在东京考试，咋办啊

guting109

说实话 PREP70%的正确率保证不了什么 GMAT有一定的运气成分 特别是在实力不够强悍的时候

Teddy99

新prep和旧的有差距.建议楼主做新题找找感觉.我也一直以为自己的语法不错,可做了新prep后语法错的最多,所以考前需要再突破一下.
从逻辑意思看就是要读懂题目的意思.比如这题. (有些题如果语法点明显的话,不看意思也没关系.)


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

(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既可能修饰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;用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

Teddy99

谁能给我点建议 二战应该用什么材料？ 新版PREP破解，还是GWD?

先看新版PREP破解吧,有时间再看gwd.

cx_ding

我感觉，语法点是帮助你判断的辅助手段，基础是阅读能力，考的应该是在能读懂句子字面意思的基础上，对句子真实含义的理解。也就是说，当你看到一个句子时，正确的感觉是在读意思，而不是找语法点，找到意思读不通的地方就对了。

我尚未考过，纯属个人观点，仅供参考。

zyjzyj

我想说的话被cx_ding说了, 非常同意, "语法点是帮助你判断的辅助手段", 我觉得根本不该死扣那么多so-called 语法点, 句意的通顺表达才是GMAC考察的东西, 而不是那些估计连英语母语的人都不知道的所谓规律和语法点, 其实GMAC考的固定的语法点就那么几个, 剩下的没什么规律可总结的, 题目的逻辑和表达才体现GMAC要考察的能力. 尽管英文规律比中文多, 可也没那么离谱, 看了语法版, 简直吓一跳. 这是我失败后得到的经验, 也许仍然是伪经验吧. 信不信up to you.