- UID
- 370696
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2008-8-20
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Oops, 不好意思, 没有看到有留言, 所以回复晚了. 我想了下这几题,我觉得就像你说的,他们都是比较不同时间下blah blah.
IMO, we can rephrase the last sentence so that it reads, "Halley's Comet caused such a worldwide sensation in no other historical sighting as it did in its return of 1910."
By the same token, we can rewrite the 2nd sentence and omit the words in the bracket so that it reads,
"Employment costs rose 2.8 percent in the 12months that ended in September , slightly less than [they did] in the year that ended in the previous quarter."
I based my reasoning on OG11-4, "A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,736 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, twice as much as 1977." A) twice as much as 1977 OG explains that A) is incorrect because it lacks "in" before 1977.
Notice, in all examples above, the two events happened at the same "time", meaning that they take the same verb tense. For instance, "caused" and "did", and "rose" and "did". Because of this reason, we can choose to omit the helping verb such as "did". In fact, doing so is preferred because it creates concise sentences.
However, I don't think that we can apply the same principle to the 1st and 3rd sentences, "Today, because of improvement of agricultural technology , the same amount of acreage produces twice as many as apples as in 1910" incorrect. We cannot omit the helping verb "it did" here because the two events happen at different "verb tense". For instance, we use "produces" in the 1st event because it happens today, while "produced" in the 2nd event since it happened in 1910. That is the general rule on when we can omit the helping verb.
Similarly, you should notice why we cannot omit the element in bracket in the 3rd sentence, "Never before had taxpayers confronted as many changes at once [as they confronted] in the Tax Reform Act of 1986."
I guess that I should stop here and let our experts chime in =)
|
|