求问：prep187，（more than 后面啥事要补出主谓）跪求NN解答。。。

mongmong

求求您了~

mongmong

拜托~

aeoluseros

OG 85:
alt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile Delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

(A) that flurished at the same time as the civilizations
(B) that had flourished at the same time as had the civilizations
(C) that flourished at the same time those had
(D) flourishing at the same time as those did (A)
(E) flourishing at the same time as those were

请问这里谓语省略是因为都是flourished？因为时态一致？
1. at the same time as the civilizations整个都是一个时间状语修饰flurished，不需要加flurished。这里不是很理解哦，那为啥因为是状语部分修饰flourished,后面的那个civilization就不能加flourished or did?

umm...前面没解释清楚，换个解释，at the same time前面并没有宾语，只有一个主语，as后面的时态相同，而且因为前面只有一个主语，所以这里只有一个名词civilization并不会引起比较歧义，所以不需要补出flourished or did.

89:
Dirt roads may evoke the bucolic simplicity of another century, but financially strained townships point out that dirt roads cost twice as much as maintaining paved roads.
(A) dirt roads cost twice as much as maintaining paved roads
(B) dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads do
(C) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do
(D) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as it does for paved roads (B)
(E) to maintain dirt roads costs twice as much as for paved roads
那么这里补出do是为了什么？
2. do可以省，也可以不省。
好的，知道了！可是为了简洁，也不引起歧义的时候不是应该从简省略吗？

对，简洁只是一个优选原则，不是绝对原则，比较里尤其如此。

另外，Verbal 2nd 70题又怎么解释？一个人看实在是头大：
The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970.
正确答案就是原文。
3. 如果表语是比较成分，那么可以看作仅仅是部分概念的比较，在此为主语比较。
请问和你举的这个例子说的是一个意思吗？
“第二题的比较是construction industry’s economic health在不同年份的属性，所以than后面可以用it was，也可以用that，或者可以不补出。但是因为five years ago前面并没有介词，所以如果不补出，读者很容易认为是construction industry’s economic health和five years ago的比较。换句话说就是，如果后面是in five years ago，那么就可以不补出。”

对。


还有，
“而在Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—fewer than …中， 不仅仅Only seven people，后面的this century have been killed by the great white shark也都在比较对象里面，所以后文不能用those killed by bee stings，而应该用平行的结构than have been killed。”
平行结构里 为何主语不补出？
3. than、as都可以兼职做关系代词。
嗯，真难，我记不住。所以好吧可以做关系代词，那么如果主语补出了可以吗？错吗？是不是下面这个例子的选项E就是你说的“than、as都可以兼职做关系代词”

对

85. According to a study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, companies in the
United States are providing job training and general
education for nearly eight million people, about
equivalent to the enrollment of the nation's four-year
colleges and universities.
(A) equivalent to the enrollment of
(B) the equivalent of those enrolled in
(C) equal to those who are enrolled in
(D) as many as the enrollment of (E)
(E) as many as are enrolled in

那么E可以改写成以下哪种？1. as many as people who are enrolled in
2. as many as who are enrolled in
3. as many as people enrolled in

第一种和第三种，其实第三种是第一种的省略，enrolled是过去分词嘛，great question。


另外，verbal 2nd的98题也很费解：
98. Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than they had in their previous
campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.
(A) they had intheir previous campaigns,
(B) their previous campaigns had had,
(C) they had for any previous campaign,
(D) in their previous campaigns, (E)
(E) for any previous campaign,
这里又是什么意思？

比较的是局部概念supplies，那么比较成分后面可以是than those for any previous campaign. 而than可以作为关系代词，所以省略those。
(than for any previous campaign --> than those for any previous campaign  --> than those that are for any previous campaign)

还有一问：主谓比较，补出动词的时候，动词需要紧跟那个比较的词（比如than），还是放在句末也可以，这里有啥讲究木？

都可以。

-- by 会员 mongmong (2011/5/23 14:52:32)

aeoluseros

求求您了~

-- by 会员 mongmong (2011/5/24 22:39:55)

mo...mongmong言重...最近太忙..

mongmong

求求您了~

-- by 会员 mongmong (2011/5/24 22:39:55)

mo...mongmong言重...最近太忙..

-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2011/5/26 22:31:32)

太感动鸟~~


还有个问题哈，其他都明了！就是这个下面2不可以的原因是不是who前面没有先行词？不好意思哈不懂的太多了。


那么E可以改写成以下哪种？
1. as many as people who are enrolled in
2. as many as who are enrolled in
3. as many as people enrolled in
第一种和第三种，其实第三种是第一种的省略，enrolled是过去分词嘛，great question。

然后还有个问题哈，咳咳，如果把下面的fewer than have been killed by bee stings补全，是fewer than those who have been killed by bee stings, 对比上面条1和条3，那不是可以写成fewer than those killed by bee stings？如果不可以是为什么哪？因为have been的时态和are不同？

Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—fewer than have been killed by bee stings.后面的比较成分是不可以改为less than those killed by bee stings的。(原因：不仅仅Only seven people，后面的this century have been killed by the great white shark也都在比较对象里面，所以后文不能用those killed by bee stings，而应该用平行的结构than have been killed。
)

谢谢你！

aeoluseros

求求您了~

-- by 会员 mongmong (2011/5/24 22:39:55)

mo...mongmong言重...最近太忙..

-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2011/5/26 22:31:32)

太感动鸟~~


还有个问题哈，其他都明了！就是这个下面2不可以的原因是不是who前面没有先行词？不好意思哈不懂的太多了。


那么E可以改写成以下哪种？
1. as many as people who are enrolled in
2. as many as who are enrolled in
3. as many as people enrolled in
第一种和第三种，其实第三种是第一种的省略，enrolled是过去分词嘛，great question。

然后还有个问题哈，咳咳，如果把下面的fewer than have been killed by bee stings补全，是fewer than those who have been killed by bee stings, 对比上面条1和条3，那不是可以写成fewer than those killed by bee stings？如果不可以是为什么哪？因为have been的时态和are不同？

Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—fewer than have been killed by bee stings.后面的比较成分是不可以改为less than those killed by bee stings的。(原因：不仅仅Only seven people，后面的this century have been killed by the great white shark也都在比较对象里面，所以后文不能用those killed by bee stings，而应该用平行的结构than have been killed。
)

谢谢你！

-- by 会员 mongmong (2011/5/26 23:52:58)

1. 可以这么理解。
2. 不可以，因为是整句概念的比较，所以后面也要用have been killed.

mongmong

求求您了~

-- by 会员 mongmong (2011/5/24 22:39:55)

mo...mongmong言重...最近太忙..

-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2011/5/26 22:31:32)

太感动鸟~~


还有个问题哈，其他都明了！就是这个下面2不可以的原因是不是who前面没有先行词？不好意思哈不懂的太多了。


那么E可以改写成以下哪种？
1. as many as people who are enrolled in
2. as many as who are enrolled in
3. as many as people enrolled in
第一种和第三种，其实第三种是第一种的省略，enrolled是过去分词嘛，great question。

然后还有个问题哈，咳咳，如果把下面的fewer than have been killed by bee stings补全，是fewer than those who have been killed by bee stings, 对比上面条1和条3，那不是可以写成fewer than those killed by bee stings？如果不可以是为什么哪？因为have been的时态和are不同？

Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—fewer than have been killed by bee stings.后面的比较成分是不可以改为less than those killed by bee stings的。(原因：不仅仅Only seven people，后面的this century have been killed by the great white shark也都在比较对象里面，所以后文不能用those killed by bee stings，而应该用平行的结构than have been killed。
)

谢谢你！

-- by 会员 mongmong (2011/5/26 23:52:58)

1. 可以这么理解。
2. 不可以，因为是整句概念的比较，所以后面也要用have been killed.

-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2011/5/26 23:59:56)

对于第二点不明白，为啥是整句概念的比较哪？麻烦你再给说说吧~

aeoluseros

umm...这只是我自己的判断规则，并不一定作为标准，仅供参考：
(1)局部概念的比较：
In addition to having more protein than wheat does, rice has a protein of higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
--> 比较的只是protein的属性。
(2)整句概念的比较：
Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—fewer than have been killed bee stings.
--> 比较的是多少人被吃这整个事情。
(3)局部概念比较与整句概念比较的本质区别：整句概念的比较涉及谓语动词（不过可能被省略），局部概念的比较只是句子某一名词成分（如主语、宾语）的比较。

(4)通过下面这个句子区分整体和局部的概念就更加明确了：
#3.(错句) According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat than (that of) livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health. 这个句子不对。
其在livestock前加上that of…比较的对象是animals has less fat和that，that指代fat，而事实上比较的应该是wild animals和livestock的属性，即拥有fat的多少（注意不是比较两种动物肥肉fat的属性），所以than后面也应该用平行的句式，即主谓宾形式，不过在此省略了相同的谓语和宾语（因为不会有wild animals have livestock的歧义，只要逻辑上基本成立，GMAT并不认为所有没有补出谓语动词的形式都是”ambiguities”的，其次比较前后时态一致，谓语动词省略）。（这个句子不对的另外一个证据： more of a kind of fat 后面省略了(than…)，而省略的部分应该和less total fat than后面的词句是一致的，这样才能省略à逻辑上看省略的必须是livestock，而不能是that of livestock，因此less total fat than后面跟的也应该是livestock。）

mongmong

看下面一个哈，那个比较清楚~~

mongmong

umm...这只是我自己的判断规则，并不一定作为标准，仅供参考：
(1)局部概念的比较：
In addition to having more protein than wheat does, rice has a protein of higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
--> 比较的只是protein的属性。
(2)整句概念的比较：
Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—fewer than have been killed bee stings.
--> 比较的是多少人被吃这整个事情。
(3)局部概念比较与整句概念比较的本质区别：整句概念的比较涉及谓语动词（不过可能被省略），局部概念的比较只是句子某一名词成分（如主语、宾语）的比较。

(4)通过下面这个句子区分整体和局部的概念就更加明确了：
#3.(错句) According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat than (that of) livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health. 这个句子不对。
其在livestock前加上that of…比较的对象是animals has less fat和that，that指代fat，而事实上比较的应该是wild animals和livestock的属性，即拥有fat的多少（注意不是比较两种动物肥肉fat的属性），所以than后面也应该用平行的句式，即主谓宾形式，不过在此省略了相同的谓语和宾语（因为不会有wild animals have livestock的歧义，只要逻辑上基本成立，GMAT并不认为所有没有补出谓语动词的形式都是”ambiguities”的，其次比较前后时态一致，谓语动词省略）。（这个句子不对的另外一个证据： more of a kind of fat 后面省略了(than…)，而省略的部分应该和less total fat than后面的词句是一致的，这样才能省略à逻辑上看省略的必须是livestock，而不能是that of livestock，因此less total fat than后面跟的也应该是livestock。）

-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2011/5/27 9:02:38)

1. 再追一个：
1）整句概念在比较的例子：Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—fewer than have been killed by bee stings.  
2）85. According to a study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, companies in the United States are providing job training and general education for nearly eight million people, about equivalent to the enrollment of the nation's four-year colleges and universities.
(A) equivalent to the enrollment of
(B) the equivalent of those enrolled in
(C) equal to those who are enrolled in
(D) as many as the enrollment of (E)
(E) as many as are enrolled in

两个例子都涉及数字的比较，而85题是局部概念在比较。请问两个例子的区别和第一个例子是被动态有关系吗？因为被动，导致数字的部分（only seven people） 和后面比较的部分不紧紧挨着？所以造成无法局部比较，只能整句概念比较？
另外，虽然第一个例子是整句概念比较，85题不是，但“than have been killed by bee stings”和"as many as are enrolled"形式是一样一样的，这样不奇怪吗？

2. 另外，还有一个问题：
OG 85:
Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile Delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.
(A) that flurished at the same time as the civilizations
(B) that had flourished at the same time as had the civilizations
(C) that flourished at the same time those had
(D) flourishing at the same time as those did (A)
(E) flourishing at the same time as those were
1.
[mongmong]: 请问这里谓语省略是因为都是flourished？因为时态一致？
[aeoluseros]: at the same time as the civilizations整个都是一个时间状语修饰flurished，不需要加flurished。
[mongmong]: 这里不是很理解哦，那为啥因为是状语部分修饰flourished,后面的那个civilization就不能加flourished or did?
[aeoluseros]: umm...前面没解释清楚，换个解释，at the same time前面并没有宾语，只有一个主语，as后面的时态相同，而且因为前面只有一个主语，所以这里只有一个名词civilization并不会引起比较歧义，所以不需要补出flourished or did.

89:
Dirt roads may evoke the bucolic simplicity of another century, but financially strained townships point out that dirt roads cost twice as much as maintaining paved roads.
(A) dirt roads cost twice as much as maintaining paved roads
(B) dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads do
(C) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do
(D) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as it does for paved roads (B)
(E) to maintain dirt roads costs twice as much as for paved roads
2.
[mongmong]:那么这里补出do是为了什么？
[aeoluseros]: do可以省，也可以不省。
[mongmong]: 好的，知道了！可是为了简洁，也不引起歧义的时候不是应该从简省略吗？
[aeoluseros]: 对，简洁只是一个优选原则，不是绝对原则，比较里尤其如此。

第二个例子是不是和第一个例子一样，“twice as much to maintain as paved roads do”整个是状语成分修饰“cost”，“twice as much to maintain” 前面也没有宾语，是不是和第一个例子完全一样的？