狗狗的考G随笔(暂时告别CD)

lwei1016

以下是引用vincent0330在2004-5-13 11:49:00的发言：


就这么说定了....你这朋友我一定会去找你....十月多我会去找GF, 到时找你喝酒....

好啊,到时就尝尝我们四川的名酒哦,还有美食, 而且还有美女的哦~~~~~~~~~~

老兄努力搞定GMAT,我们四川见啊,不醉不休哦.

vincent0330

还要好久啊!!得考好才敢去......

arundhati

以下是引用vincent0330在2004-5-13 21:18:00的发言：
哈哈...经验交流就好啦!!hati最近很专注噢!!加油!!

嘻嘻，加油啊！我只是表面专注而已，还是没什么实质性的提高。狗狗加油啊，我很看好你的，将来也是N人一个～

tulipmontreal

楼主聪明有幽默,一定能搞定ETS.++++++++++++uuuuuu

lwei1016

以下是引用vincent0330在2004-5-14 0:40:00的发言：
还要好久啊!!得考好才敢去......

老兄一定没有问题的  

来了一定要找我哦,.老兄.

加油,加油~~~~~~~~~~`

我爱宝宝

上门请教问题，因为觉得vincent语法总结的好认真哦。

og234The physical structure of the human eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters; infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long to be registered by the eye.

(A)  infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long to be registered by the eye

(B)   however, the wavelength of infrared radia­tion--0.1 millimeters--is top long to be registered by the eye making it invisible

(C)  infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long for the eye to register it

(D)  however, because the wavelength of infrared radiation is 0.1 millimeters, it is too long for the eye to register and thus invisible

(E)   however, infrared radiation has a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long for the eye to register, thus making it invisible

og解释In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing.Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible

incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation.

我的问题：为什么d中的it是inprecise的，按照逻辑指代原则，it指代the wavelength of infrared

radiation，那么黄色部份是正确的，当然绿色的在这种情况下错误；反过来，按照ets解释，绿色

不正确原因成立，那么黄色部份的it指代就是清晰的，指代the wavelength。也就是说，按照我对

ets自己的解释的理解，不应该同时出现代词指代和句子谓语修饰的错误，好比“矛和盾”。反

之，est两者都解释正确，那我的理解错误。

不知道我说清楚了没，自己也觉得很搞不清楚，见谅。附上自己的理解，请指教。

我的解释：代词指代不清，指代分句主语还是分句主语的修饰部份，错，当所有各为主语时，其

后的代词指代可能产生指代不清得问题；谓语动词修饰错误，原句意思infrared radiation is

invisible，这里变成the wavelength of infrared radiation is thus invisible,

请求帮助和讨论，谢谢vincent！

附：1、本题中it不应该前句主语，依据见og232

232. Unlike auto insurance, the frequency of claims does not affect the premiums for personal property coverage, but if the insurance company is able to prove excessive loss due to owner negligence, it may decline to renew the policy.

2、it可以指代所有格整个部份，包括名词及其修饰部份，依据见og231b解释

231. Ms. Chambers is among the forecasters who predict that the rate of addition to arable lands will drop while those of loss rise.

(A)  those of loss rise

(B)  it rises for loss

In B, it refers to the rate of addition; consequently, B makes the nonsensical statement that the rate of addition... rises for loss.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-5-15 3:29:19编辑过]

vincent0330

以下是引用我爱宝宝在2004-5-15 2:41:00的发言：

上门请教问题，因为觉得vincent语法总结的好认真哦。

og234The physical structure of the human eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters; infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long to be registered by the eye.

(A)  infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long to be registered by the eye

(B)   however, the wavelength of infrared radia­tion--0.1 millimeters--is top long to be registered by the eye making it invisible

(C)  infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long for the eye to register it

(D)  however, because the wavelength of infrared radiation is 0.1 millimeters, it is too long for the eye to register and thus invisible

(E)   however, infrared radiation has a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long for the eye to register, thus making it invisible

og解释In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing.Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible

incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation.

我的问题：为什么d中的it是inprecise的，按照逻辑指代原则，it指代the wavelength of infrared

radiation，那么黄色部份是正确的，当然绿色的在这种情况下错误；反过来，按照ets解释，绿色

不正确原因成立，那么黄色部份的it指代就是清晰的，指代the wavelength。也就是说，按照我对

ets自己的解释的理解，不应该同时出现代词指代和句子谓语修饰的错误，好比“矛和盾”。反

之，est两者都解释正确，那我的理解错误。

不知道我说清楚了没，自己也觉得很搞不清楚，见谅。附上自己的理解，请指教。

我的解释：代词指代不清，指代分句主语还是分句主语的修饰部份，错，当所有各为主语时，其

后的代词指代可能产生指代不清得问题；谓语动词修饰错误，原句意思infrared radiation is

invisible，这里变成the wavelength of infrared radiation is thus invisible,

请求帮助和讨论，谢谢vincent！

附：1、本题中it不应该前句主语，依据见og232

232. Unlike auto insurance, the frequency of claims does not affect the premiums for personal property coverage, but if the insurance company is able to prove excessive loss due to owner negligence, it may decline to renew the policy.

2、it可以指代所有格整个部份，包括名词及其修饰部份，依据见og231b解释

231. Ms. Chambers is among the forecasters who predict that the rate of addition to arable lands will drop while those of loss rise.

(A)  those of loss rise

(B)  it rises for loss

In B, it refers to the rate of addition; consequently, B makes the nonsensical statement that the rate of addition... rises for loss.

基本上要谢谢宝宝让我再把这题搞懂.....cc

我的看法如下:

og解释In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing.Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation

(C)中的its和it逻辑指代不同, its 指代infrared radiation, it 指代 wavelength, 有违一致性

(D)中的it 指代wavelength, 造成错误表达 wavelength是invisible

(E)中的it , 更不用说, 可指代 infrared radiation, wavelength of 0.1 millimeter 和 eye

基本上, 我看OG也是一知半解的(像这一题我也看了快一个小时才能回答你的问题),

这也是为何大NN说OG要看很多遍, 其意自现......

所以, 基本上宝宝的看法是对的, 也就是(D)中的it是指代wavelength没错, 只是语法上指代没错, 逻辑上指代却错误.....至于OG里头的解释是写的太简洁, 我们可以把furthermore那句当成对上句的补充......

总的来说, OG里头的解释混杂语法上和逻辑上的解释....所以当我们看到Sth is wordy, imprecise....时, 要抓出来到底是啥子错误......

不知道这样有无回答你的问题.......

再讨论.....

vincent0330

以下是引用arundhati在2004-5-14 13:44:00的发言：

嘻嘻，加油啊！我只是表面专注而已，还是没什么实质性的提高。狗狗加油啊，我很看好你的，将来也是N人一个～

不赶奢望N分, 只求问心无愧啊!!

我爱宝宝

以下是引用vincent0330在2004-5-15 5:16:00的发言：

(C)中的its和it逻辑指代不同, its 指代infrared radiation, it 指代 wavelength, 有违一致性

(D)中的it 指代wavelength, 造成错误表达 wavelength是invisible

(E)中的it , 更不用说, 可指代 infrared radiation, wavelength of 0.1 millimeter 和 eye

基本上, 我看OG也是一知半解的(像这一题我也看了快一个小时才能回答你的问题),

这也是为何大NN说OG要看很多遍, 其意自现......

所以, 基本上宝宝的看法是对的, 也就是(D)中的it是指代wavelength没错, 只是语法上指代没错, 逻辑上指代却错误.....至于OG里头的解释是写的太简洁, 我们可以把furthermore那句当成对上句的补充......

总的来说, OG里头的解释混杂语法上和逻辑上的解释....所以当我们看到Sth is wordy, imprecise....时, 要抓出来到底是啥子错误......

也就是说在这题里面og解释 it is so imprecise as to be confusing并不是说it指代wrong，只是imprecise，于是as to be confusing。这样的话，og的解释Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation.就进一步印证了it的语法指代是正确的，错因是逻辑指代imprecise as to be confusing。推而广之，it仍然优先指代本句主语，但有可能在此过程中发生逻辑指代错误，例如成为其后动词的错误逻辑主语，这样，这个it就发生了a kind of imprise problem，所以，错。

再讨论.....

谢谢，清楚些了，似乎得出个不是结论的结论。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-5-15 5:47:07编辑过]

kevinwww

以下是引用lwei1016在2004-5-13 22:04:00的发言：

好啊,到时就尝尝我们四川的名酒哦,还有美食, 而且还有美女的哦~~~~~~~~~~

老兄努力搞定GMAT,我们四川见啊,不醉不休哦.

lwei是四川的，名酒+美食+美女，好有诱惑力！！！报名先！！！（老哥认识会做火锅的“大厨”吗？）