在职备战——大道至简

爱兔兰

前句是指前面整个句子？！？！也包括 union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled 这部分，我咋觉得这样理解不对喃？  spend less time with each的each是指each patient吧？这一小部分能修饰前面整个句子？还是不理解啊>_<

-- by 会员 爱兔兰 (2010/9/30 21:12:30)

修饰(plans) require doctors to see more patients.

-- by 会员 孤独的长跑者 (2010/9/30 21:17:14)

原来置句尾的v.ing不是要做整句话的结果，而是可以只做前面一部分的结果啊？！？！

放句尾的v.ing真的只有表结果的意思，确定吗？

爱兔兰

很想知道一个知识点 但不知道怎么寻找，就是 现在分词放句尾表结果的时候，到底是修饰啥的呀？是其前面的名词？还是主句主语，亦或是前面整句话的意思？  现在分词放句尾除了表结果还有其他的作用吗？   真的快纠结死我了...  哪位NN能回答我一下啊？！？！

-- by 会员 爱兔兰 (2010/9/30 20:20:33)

修饰整个主句。通常都是表结果，决非没有重大联系的伴随动作或者并存现象等等。见OG26。

-- by 会员 孤独的长跑者 (2010/9/30 20:39:25)

那帮我看看这道题吧

Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each.

A. imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend
B. imposing stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients, and spending
C. that impose stricter limits on medical services, require doctors to see more patients, and spend
D. that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending
E. that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spending
答案是D

如果让我第一眼见到的话，我选的就是E 觉得逻辑上没有一定要require的主语是plans的意思吧，难道不可以说requiring...and spending...是用来解释stricter limits的吗？我好像记得prep里面有一题就是这样用的...        还有，如果是像D的话，spending到底是修饰啥的喃？我觉得应该是修饰doctors的吧，可放句尾这样有点像修饰limits的了... 很不解啊很不解... 请指教！！！

-- by 会员 爱兔兰 (2010/9/30 20:57:07)

我认为impose 和require是平行的，spending 是前句导致的结果，并不是和前面一系列动作平行的，好像gwd还是prep上有一个类似的题。

-- by 会员 donganyuan (2010/9/30 21:02:36)

前句是指前面整个句子？！？！也包括 union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled 这部分，我咋觉得这样理解不对喃？  spend less time with each的each是指each patient吧？这一小部分能修饰前面整个句子？还是不理解啊>_<

-- by 会员 爱兔兰 (2010/9/30 21:12:30)

我想spending是修饰前面that 后的句子的，而不是和impose和require平行的。是因为 impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients导致spending less time with each

-- by 会员 donganyuan (2010/9/30 21:20:33)

谢谢解答！貌似我把stricter limits的内容理解成了require doctors to see more patients and spend less time with each。。。这样的逻辑是错的吧？！

estop

我爱姐姐，我按照你的阅读暴力方法做了几篇阅读了，
虽然没做完，但是有些题感觉是不是可以用有关无关去考虑呢，类比逻辑。尤其是Infer题，还是都要去文章定位，看有没有呢。而且大牛们说阅读长短无所谓，但是我觉得长文章的转折词比较多，逻辑也比较乱，其实比短文章难不少呢。

孤独的长跑者

(plans) spend less time with each. 不合逻辑吧。

donganyuan

前句是指前面整个句子？！？！也包括 union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled 这部分，我咋觉得这样理解不对喃？  spend less time with each的each是指each patient吧？这一小部分能修饰前面整个句子？还是不理解啊>_<

-- by 会员 爱兔兰 (2010/9/30 21:12:30)

修饰(plans) require doctors to see more patients.

-- by 会员 孤独的长跑者 (2010/9/30 21:17:14)

原来置句尾的v.ing不是要做整句话的结果，而是可以只做前面一部分的结果啊？！？！

放句尾的v.ing真的只有表结果的意思，确定吗？

-- by 会员 爱兔兰 (2010/9/30 21:26:35)

从Manhattan搜来的解答，希望能对你有帮助
in choice d, you could legitimately make a case that 'spending' could modify the entire huge clause about what insurance plans do, and is therefore ambiguous. however, that's the OA, so you've learned that this problem is ok in the eyes of the gmat people. if there's a rule that can be articulated here, it's probably something along the lines of 'participial modifier applies to nearest action'.



you have to realize which verbs are supposed to be parallel and which aren't. there's no grammatical formula for this; you have to examine the meaning of the sentence to figure it out.
- 'impose' (in whatever form) should be parallel to 'require' (again, in whatever form). these are two different things, both of which are aspects of the plan (= logical parallelism).
- 'spend' should not be parallel to 'see', because it functions as a modifier of 'see' (it's a descriptive adverb modifier, detailing the way in which the doctors see the patients).

choice a: 'spend' is ungrammatical here (it has no logical subject, and isn't parallel to anything).
choice b: imposing, requiring, and spending are all parallel, implying that the insurance plans do all three of these things (an absurdity in the last case).
choice c: all three verbs are parallel again, leading to the same absurdity witnessed in choice b.
choice d (= correct): the parallelism follows the model outlined above: only the verbs that are logically parallel appear in parallel structure.
choice e: 'requiring' and 'spending' are parallel in the modifier, implying that the plans themselves spend time with patients (in addition to requiring blah blah blah). this doesn't make sense.

呜啦呜啦dd

wow~~~~

livia小课堂~~~好壮观的噻~~~

怎么办！我貌似语法快忘光了。。。。

livia2012

呵呵。看来大家都解释清晰哦！这样最好，大家都能提高呀！

孤独的长跑者

嗯。建议大家多到M记看看。那个RON是个大神！膜拜啊！贡个猪头给他。

livia2012

我爱姐姐，我按照你的阅读暴力方法做了几篇阅读了，
虽然没做完，但是有些题感觉是不是可以用有关无关去考虑呢，类比逻辑。尤其是Infer题，还是都要去文章定位，看有没有呢。而且大牛们说阅读长短无所谓，但是我觉得长文章的转折词比较多，逻辑也比较乱，其实比短文章难不少呢。

-- by 会员 estop (2010/9/30 21:35:48)

说的没错，其实GMAT的三个部分都是在考察逻辑！阅读里面的很多选项，如果对文章结构把握准确，很顺利就可以用“无关”来排除！
长文章也是分类型的，有的单纯是讲N个观点的文章确实会比较让人头疼。不要紧，慢慢就好了。

livia2012

嗯。建议大家多到M记看看。那个RON是个大神！膜拜啊！贡个猪头给他。

-- by 会员 孤独的长跑者 (2010/9/30 22:59:45)

非常赞同！我觉得ron就是一个语法百科全书，啥都懂，啥都三言两语能解释明白。ps,我的数学没看完，我抱着热水袋接着看......疼啊