(六月五日的去函询问) To whom will concern:
Recently I've reviewing The Official Guide for GMAT. However, I found
this very paradox in the Sentence Correction part.
164. The commission proposed that funding for the park's development,
which could be open to the public early next year, is obtained through a
local bond issue.
(A) that funding for the park?s development, which could be open to the
public early next year, is
(B) that funding for development of the park, which could be open to the
public early next year, be
(C) funding for the development of the park, perhaps open to the public
early next year, to be
(D) funds for the park?s development, perhaps open to the public early
next year, be(B)
(E) development funding for the park, which could be open to the public
early next year, is to be
Choice B is best. Choice A attaches the relative clause which could be
open... to the noun development, when, in fact, it is the park that
could be open. Choice C omits that, the object of proposed that is
needed to introduce the clause describing the proposal. C also uses to
be unidiomatically where be is correct: the commission proposed [that]
funding... to be obtained is wrong. Choice D incorrectly uses perhaps
open to the public... to modify development; the phrase should modify
park. Choice E, which seriously distorts meaning, says that the
commission proposed development funding and that such funding could be
open to the public....
When I compared the red part with the blue part, it seemed to me a
contradiction. Therefore, I searched some similar question about "which"
(nonrestrictive clause), but nothing I could find like this.
Thank you for being patient to read this E-Mail, and, it is hoped, for
the further explaination or more detailed definition.
Sincrrely,
Vincent (六月二五日的回复) Thank you for your message concerning question 164 in the Sentence
Correction section of The Official Guide for GMAT Review. You indicated that
the explanations for why options A and E are incorrect present a
contradiction.
As stated in the explanation, option A is incorrect in part because the
relative clause "which could be open to the public early next year" has no
logical referent. In option E, however, the problem with the relative clause
is less clear. While the referent for "which" is slightly ambiguous, it is
overstating the case somewhat to claim that this phrasing "seriously
distorts meaning," and we should have chosen another aspect of the option to
emphasize in explaining why it is incorrect. In this case, the use of "is to
be" creates a more obvious and important grammatical error. We will consider
revising this explanation when a new edition of the Guide is produced, and
we appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concern with us. We are
always grateful to receive inquiries such as yours because they help us to
improve the quality of our tests and test preparation materials.
PS:个人意见:
个人认为ETS阐述(E)的非限定定语从句是slightly ambiguous, 在OG里面的解释是 overstating the case somewhat to claim that this phrasing "seriously
distorts meaning," (同bunnier与我爱宝宝的答复) 在这里向之前讨论的xdjm致谢, 让我有这个疑问与信心去函, 虽然得到答案不 是很满意....
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2004-6-8 06:01:00
楼主
