ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

正确答案: D

相关帖子

更多...

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: 3514|回复: 5
打印 上一主题 下一主题

OG12 语法 74

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-3-4 20:11:52 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
74.A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

答案是D,可是我就是觉得是A。

看了之前大家的讨论帖,选D,认为“由于法规仍有效,所以用are”,也就是说that从句是修饰agreement的,但这不符合定语从句的就近原则。

我认为从句是修饰the amount,“同意减少政府被允许倾倒的量”,而这个“量”自然是协商之前被允许的。所以无法理解……

愿各位指点~~
拜谢~~
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2010-3-4 21:44:06 | 只看该作者
THAT肯定是修饰phosphates   做 dump的宾语   按照LZ的说法 如果是AMOUNT  那么就是  DUMP  AMOUNT
倒的只能是垃圾 不能是量
板凳
发表于 2010-4-2 08:46:29 | 只看该作者
我也在纠结这个题,做大全的时候出现了这个题目,987—2,它的答案就是A
其实我倾向于A 反倒觉得D时态不正确
请NN们解答
地板
发表于 2011-4-20 19:32:28 | 只看该作者
reduce 为什么一定要用 过去式?has reduced 不行么?
既然选D用are allowed,表明至今仍可以dump,那agreement 就从颁布后一直在减少(reduce),所以我觉得用has reduced的表明过去发生的事情一直持续到现在很合理啊~~
大家怎么看??
5#
发表于 2012-8-5 16:44:13 | 只看该作者
我也在纠结!!为什么不是A,减少的不是以前倒的么
6#
发表于 2016-12-18 12:13:08 | 只看该作者
RON: "Reduce" is not an ongoing state of existence. It's something that happens at one particular point in time.
Reduce 不可持续的动作

TIM: as for A, in the same sense that you cannot go back in time and change how much was dumped, you cannot go back in time and change how much was allowed. you can only change how much was allowed from that point forward..

GUEST: It should be D. You cannot reduce the amount of phosphates that 'had been allowed' because that dumping has already been done. You can only reduce the amount that can be dumped from now on. Only D makes it clear.

RON: If this still doesn't make sense to you, put a (pre-1972) year on them. E.g., the amounts that were specified in 1969.
Perhaps that will make it more clear"”you can't reduce the amounts that were specified in 1969, because they were specified in 1969. (The current figure can represent a diminution from those historical figures, but a diminution of those figures is impossible; we can't change history.) Same issue here.

协议减少了phosphates被允许倾倒的数量
不能说是协议减少了phosphates在1900年被允许倾倒的数量。以前被倒的已经倒掉了,不能再被减少了。

以上

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, 2024-4-29 02:46
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