prep2008 -sc 语法笔记勘误、查漏专贴

windmaple

test 1
239  A. 前面it指代后面主句的主语，成了指代its own weight

我觉得这个值得商榷。我个人觉得这里it并不指代任何东西，if you plug the supposedly correct 'a star' in, you get "If a start were not for ...", which is very awkward IMHO. I couldn't make much sense out of it.

In fact, 'if it were not for...' *seems* to be an idiomatic expression. I did a quick googling and found one example:

If it were not for the Recovery Act, these people would not have been hired.

Here 'it' couldn't possibly refer to anything(just as in 'it's ... that/who ...'). But this doesn't come out of GMAC materials, so nobody can be too sure.

The following is from an online dictionary: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/if+it+weren%27t+for
if it weren't for somebody/something: the situation would have been different without someone or something
eg: If it weren't for him, I would probably be living on the streets. I'd keep a garden if it weren't for having too much to do.
Usage notes: also used in the form if it hadn't been for someone or something:
eg: If it hadn't been for Judy, Betsy was sure she would have left the city.

windmaple

test 1
254
1.    一般的介词只能接疑问词引导的宾语从句，不能接that引导的宾语从句。但是but that=except that；in that=because(还是有不同)  这三个介词+that从句属于例外，约定俗成的用法。-----from 白勇语法

只有2个例子；另外OG12说in that已经mostly out of use. I think ppl should be wary of it

2.    whether表示列举时候的用法：whether A, B, or C.

This reminds me of something interesting. Not sure if it should be included though.
我的美国同事那天发的email里面说“既不A，也不B，也不C”，Guess what he used?

"Neither A nor B nor C". I personally have never seen this kind of usage before; neither has my Chinese co-worker(who spent 10+ years in US). So don't be surprised if you see this.

windmaple

test 1
256
B 主语从句的时态错误，用过去完成时需要句子逻辑上明确表明make stone tools发生在过去的过去，即有一个时间点的对比。

I actually think the tense is correct here; feel free to disagree

假设你站在the earliest date（过去）it was known blabla，那humans made stone tools肯定是发生在这个date之前的，past perfect tense would make sense here.

nevertheless, 'it is known' kills B right away

windmaple

test 2
163
He went into the classroom and **sit** on the chair.(逻辑上很合理，只有进了教室才可以坐在椅子上)

should be 'sat'

windmaple

test 2
181 补充的讨论，我看到的关于分词修饰的某个帖子，总结的很好，但是不确定放在这里是不是合适，aeoluseros斟酌下吧

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.当过去分词在句末时，不管有无逗号，都是就近修饰名词;
2.现在分词在句末时，无逗号是就近修饰的名词的定语；
3.当现在分词在句尾且前有逗号时,修饰邻近句子的主语,做主语的伴随状语或做句子的伴随结果.因此不能用句尾现在分词修饰前面句尾的名词. 所以OG127说C选项:"the phrase having been assigned...is uncertain in reference,making the sentence unclear."-->就是说这个现在分词本来是应该修饰前面的employee的,却变成了修饰主语governments了.  (另外在GMAT里,having been done的用法错误,应直接用done)
避免上述错误的方法:所修饰的名词在句尾用定语从句修饰--OG127正确选项B (而不用加逗号的现在分词修饰.其实分词是定语从句的省略形式,在句中无逗号分词(注意是无逗号的,有逗号的在句中有歧义)就比定语从句简洁)还有 OG120也是同样道理:修饰句尾名词,正确选项A用定语从句.E选项的句尾现在分词错误.
4.当现在/过去分词在句中且前没有逗号,修饰前面紧邻名词;
5.当现在/过去分词在句中且前后都有逗号,有歧义:1)修饰前面紧邻的名词,2)向后修饰后面句子的主语.
 这种结构在GMAT肯定错,如果修饰某句主语,则避免将该分词置于以名词结尾的句后.避免方式:1)用定语从句/介词短语明确修饰对象.2)可将分词提到句首,所修饰主语及所在句子紧跟其后-->形成句首分词修饰句子主语.见OG179
6.在前面有多个名词如名词1+介词+名词2结构,而要用分词修饰名词1时,为避免歧义要重复名词1即用同位语结构:名词1+介词+名词2,名词1+分词.见OG208

windmaple

test 2
204
(4) N.+ required of sb. to do sth.    某物对某人做某事来说是必须的

最好能给个例子. Took me a while to figure out. And you actually can have a 'be' there(diff construction, of course), depending on the context.

eg: This leaves open an "in-between" position: The efforts required of someone to prevent the consequences of his non-negligent act could be greater than what would be required of any bystander, but not as great as would be required to avoid an act than is known to cause the harmful consequences.

windmaple

test 2
227
错误：intent of doing错

Manhattan Review(4th ed) pp157说intent of doing是可以的。网上也有很多人这么用。
I personally think it's acceptable, although I'd watch out for it.

windmaple

test 2
173

Speaking of plurals, [index] 's is definitely an outlier

做目录的时候是indexes, 做下标的时候是indices，这点连白勇的书都是错的

windmaple

test 2
229
2.  Like做对比时的位置: 1. X, like Y, V+O; 2. Like Y, X+V+O; 3. X+V+O, like Y.  所有对比的对象都是X。

'X+V+O, like Y', this one is tricky. 要是没有逗号就会有歧义，I got tripped
cf.  Manhattan Review SC (4th ed) pp254
cf. OG 82 A, 100 E

windmaple

test 1
238
（twice只能用在数量上的双倍，例如 twice as much as , 但是不可以用在其它形容词或是副词的翻倍，例如twice as rapidly as是错的。）

I am not so sure about this. Can you provide some proof that this is true?

Manhattan Review SC(4th ed) pp266  example 29 (a): the correct idiom _twice as high as_

Another example I found:
"Firefox and Chrome Run Gmail Twice as Fast as IE, Says Google"

"twice as rapidly as" does sound strange though.