[求助]

allwen99

258. The British sociologist and activist Barbara Wootton once noted as a humorous example of income maldistribution that the elephant that gave rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo was earning annuallyfficeffice" />

exactly what she then earned as director of adult education for London.

(A) that the elephant that gave rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo was earning

(B) that the elephant, giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo, had been earning

(C) that there was an elephant giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo, and it earned

(D) the elephant that gave rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo and was earning

(E) the elephant giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo and that it earned

    

Choice A, the best answer, uses the idiomatic construction noted... that and clearly focuses on the salient information-- a comparison of annual earnings. In B, the structure of noted... that the elephant, giving rides ..., had been earning falsely implies that the reader already knows about the elephant--that is, that the existence of this particular elephant is not new information. (实在看不懂为什么? )Also, the past perfect had been improperly places the elephant's earning in the past, prior to Wootton's; consistent verb tense is needed to show that the actions are simultaneous. (但是A中是过去进行式时态也不一致啊? )Choice C may be faulted for distortion of meaning and diminished clarity because it suggests that the point of Wootton's example was the elephant's very existence(请问这句话是什么意思?); comparative earnings are presented (after and) as incidental detail. Choice D is awkward and inexact; the whole circumstance that Wootton "noted" is best expressed in a clause that begins with that. Choice E does not use the idiomatic construction noted that x; therefore, and that it earned has no parallel construction to which it can be joined.

    

请大侠们赐教 !

    

tianwan

首先，以后要注意发贴要标明题号。
赐教不敢当，一起讨论。


1，定语限制性和非限制性修饰，A是限制性修饰，B是非限制性修饰。
2，你观察还是很细的，但A强调大象正在（在Barbara说的时候）赚着和作者赚的一样的钱，没有错；但是B的had been表示了模糊的概念，该大象一直以来都和作者赚一样多的钱？意思就模糊了。至少改变了句子意思。
3，Barbara举例子表示荒谬的收入分配，而C却举例说有个大象，逻辑意思是荒谬的；另外，and it的并列关系也模糊，这种模糊是应该通过去掉and前的逗号避免的。