在职备战——大道至简

livia2012

wow~~~~

livia小课堂~~~好壮观的噻~~~

怎么办！我貌似语法快忘光了。。。。

-- by 会员 呜啦呜啦dd (2010/9/30 22:44:21)

你已经光荣地完成了杀鸡大业啦，忘就忘了吧！忘了正好能达到正常美国人水平，我估计native没几个能像我们这么把语法讲得清楚的，除非是为了考gmat

呜啦呜啦dd

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

-- by 会员 livia2012 (2010/9/30 23:00:59)

我也大爱Ron~~~~~太牛啦！！！！别的staff都歇菜啊~~~~就专找他啊~~~~~oh my Ron！

姐姐喝点儿热红糖水~~~

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

-- by 会员 livia2012 (2010/9/30 23:00:59)

我也大爱Ron~~~~~太牛啦！！！！别的staff都歇菜啊~~~~就专找他啊~~~~~oh my Ron！

姐姐喝点儿热红糖水~~~

-- by 会员 呜啦呜啦dd (2010/9/30 23:03:54)

喝了，唉，不是单纯这个事儿，好像是肠胃着凉也不知道怎么回事，老串着疼，从胃到肚子.......

孤独的长跑者

你已经光荣地完成了杀鸡大业啦，忘就忘了吧！忘了正好能达到正常美国人水平，我估计native没几个能像我们这么把语法讲得清楚的，除非是为了考gmat

-- by 会员 livia2012 (2010/9/30 23:02:06)

Native？算了吧。我的语法就是让他们给毁了。满大街都是说： Me and my brother don't do nothing, innit?

呜啦呜啦dd

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

-- by 会员 livia2012 (2010/9/30 23:00:59)

我也大爱Ron~~~~~太牛啦！！！！别的staff都歇菜啊~~~~就专找他啊~~~~~oh my Ron！

姐姐喝点儿热红糖水~~~

-- by 会员 呜啦呜啦dd (2010/9/30 23:03:54)

喝了，唉，不是单纯这个事儿，好像是肠胃着凉也不知道怎么回事，老串着疼，从胃到肚子.......

-- by 会员 livia2012 (2010/9/30 23:05:56)

啊~~~那赶紧睡吧~~~晚安！~

estop

请问M记，Ron都是啥？

呜啦呜啦dd

请问M记，Ron都是啥？

-- by 会员 estop (2010/9/30 23:37:46)

M记是Manhattan论坛，为啥大叔管它叫M记 偶就不清楚鸟~~~
Ron是Manhattan论坛的一个staff，是个神！！！

孤独的长跑者

没见过张记面馆王记包子铺之类的吗？

爱兔兰

弱弱滴问一句...Manhattan论坛有网址否？

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？

-- 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.

-- by 会员 donganyuan (2010/9/30 22:05:29)

谢谢donganyuan 兄， 'spend' should not be parallel to 'see', because it functions as a modifier of 'see' 所以可以认为spend是修饰see这个动作的可否？所以，置句尾v.ing比一定修饰整句意思？  （我觉得我是不是有点钻牛角尖了>_<）