gwd 8-11,41

dollphin

有道理啊!太谢谢了!!再次道谢

LES说得对,fish结尾的确应作为复数来看,要不然which的错误更大

关于these,them指代是有依据的,OG P714-79,tianwan不知你身边有书么?下面是解释

use these rather than them as the pronoun referring to the "poor"(题目中的人) is wrong

lucre

Q41:
When drive-ins were at the height of their popularity in the late 1950’s, some 4,000
existed in the United States, but today there are less than one-quarter that many.
A. there are less than one-quarter that many
B. there are fewer than one-quarter as many
C. there are fewer than one-quarter of that amount
D. the number is less than one-quarter the amount
E. it is less than one-quarter of that amount
不要笑话俺,俺怎么看D顺眼的紧,错在哪了?

dollphin

我的理解,number是不能用less修饰的,OG上只能用great

另外quater后面少了of

lucre

以下是引用dollphin在2004-7-15 17:01:00的发言：

我的理解,number是不能用less修饰的,OG上只能用great

另外quater后面少了of

1: half/one-third/one-quarter/one-fifth/xx% the amount是很常用的结构,当然加of也不错

OG里相似的例子

59. In 1978 only half the women granted child support by a court received the amount awarded; at least as much as a million and more others had not any support agreements whatsoever.

2: number用greater than而不能用more than(例外是more than doubled/tripled) 但是less than应该是可以的

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-15 17:35:46编辑过]

luoffice

顶一下,NN们指点指点

rt316

以下是引用dollphin在2004-7-15 13:55:00的发言：

有道理啊!太谢谢了!!再次道谢

LES说得对,fish结尾的确应作为复数来看,要不然which的错误更大

关于these,them指代是有依据的,OG P714-79,tianwan不知你身边有书么?下面是解释

use these rather than them as the pronoun referring to the "poor"(题目中的人) is wrong

虽然fish的确可以单复数同型，但是我不认为这里的fish是复数，当表达一种鱼或整个鱼类时，fish作为单数，而当要表达多条鱼时我们可以用fish或fishes来表达复数。本句monkfish和cod / haddock一样明显各自指代一种鱼，所以我认为，they是指代cod and haddock的。

gmat700+

以下是引用stoneren在2004-7-16 0:57:00的发言：


虽然fish的确可以单复数同型，但是我不认为这里的fish是复数，当表达一种鱼或整个鱼类时，fish作为单数，而当要表达多条鱼时我们可以用fish或fishes来表达复数。本句monkfish和cod / haddock一样明显各自指代一种鱼，所以我认为，they是指代cod and haddock的。

可是，我觉得如果their指代cod and haddock的话，逻辑上不通啊！

rt316

以下是引用gmat700+在2004-7-16 1:05:00的发言：


可是，我觉得如果their指代cod and haddock的话，逻辑上不通啊！

我认为逻辑上是合理的，原句as短语暗示了比较，作者明显指出因为没有相关法律针对cod and haddock，所以导致其过度捕捞，而同样的前提也发生在monkfish上，暗示monkfish的结果类似。而且，我现在从C/D中的its得到佐证，monkfish应该是单数。

gmat700+

以下是引用stoneren在2004-7-16 1:23:00的发言：

我认为逻辑上是合理的，原句as短语暗示了比较，作者明显指出因为没有相关法律针对cod and haddock，所以导致其过度捕捞，而同样的前提也发生在monkfish上，暗示monkfish的结果类似。而且，我现在从C/D中的its得到佐证，monkfish应该是单数。

我的理解是：法律没有限制monkfish的捕捞数量，而对cod and haddock法律上就有捕捞数量的限制，所以monkfish现在被过度捕捞。

rt316

以下是引用trustme在2004-7-3 22:04:00的发言：
记得上次听说a中: "There are no..for .., as there are for..." 这种表达意思上说不过去..., 对后者到底是"有"呢, 还是"没有", 是有歧义的,不是吗?

到底这个用法可行么？我也糊涂了。恭请NN