[求助]新prep2，210

cptiger

我也选A错，E中动词时态我觉得用过去时态更好outnumbered
有没有人解释下为什么可用一般现在时？

付小猫

我也选A错，E中动词时态我觉得用过去时态更好outnumbered
有没有人解释下为什么可用一般现在时？

-- by 会员 cptiger (2011/3/27 18:22:43)

同问！！~~~

flewrudy

转自http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post24246.html
this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are tw completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.

examples:
my brother, who ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduated in 1994. --> correct; his eating bagel bites had no impact on his graduation date.
my brother ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduating in 1994. --> incorrect; these are two unrelated observations, but this construction erroneously implies some sort of relationship.
他的例子举得非常好！！

flewrudy

我觉得如果用outnumber也没错，但是a是明显有问题的啊

纳纳太阳花

我觉得是陈述客观事实，所以用一般现在时

MILKLUVNYC

关于E选项which指代的问题，manhattan论坛的ron大神是这么说的：
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/emily-dickinson-s-letters-to-susan-huntington-dickinson-were-t6529.html
occasionally, when it is completely unambiguous, "which" can refer to a whole NOUN PHRASE that immediately precedes the comma.
in this case, this noun phrase is "X's letters to Y". (note that this noun phrase, as a unit, does immediately precede the comma.)

also, note the complete lack of grammatical ambiguity: "which" can't refer to dickinson, who is a person, and it's also followed by a plural verb. both of these pieces of evidence point to the noun phrase "X's letters to Y".

--

here's the basic summary:
if you have "X of Y, which..."
then:
* if Y works as the antecedent of "which", then "which" should stand for Y.
* if Y doesn't work as the antecedent, but "X of Y" DOES work, then "which" can stand for "X of Y".

zxppx

china101 发表于 2009-6-4 21:49
210.       (29708-!-item-!-188;#058&004436)    &nb ...

有看到说：当主句是被动语态的时候，doing修饰时不能作为“结果”
Ron认为，outnumber和were written over a period是两件独立的事情，两者之间没有关系  http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/emily-dickinson-s-letters-to-susan-huntington-dickinson-were-t6529.html
但是我觉得，不能说它们没关系，我可以描述“信在某个时间段被写完”，并且“这些信的数量超过了...”
OG上的解释是：前面出现了太多的时间状语，弄得outnumber不清楚到底是在修饰什么。

ericeric77

这个所谓逻辑解释太牵强，看了答案可以这么强行解释。

凭啥写信和outnumber没逻辑联系，不写那么多年咋出来那么多封信，怎么outnumber别的.

shangjiongj

同问为什么不是outnumbered