og 200

coteki

200. Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place: one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(A)  Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(B)   If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(C)  If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals.

(D)  The finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective.

(E)   The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place.

Dangling or misplaced modifiers plague choices B, C, and D: in each case, the phrase if used repeatedly in the same place illogically modifies one reason rather than certain pesticides.

为什么指one reason而不能理解为指certain pesticides

Andrea625

从语法上讲是这样的。这里明显时就近和从句和主句的例子。

关于指代有过很深入的讨论，没有单一的规律可言。比如说就近或者从句的代词一定指代主句主语或者宾语等（优先是肯定的）。有时要根据逻辑句意来分析，但是从逻辑讲只能指代某一词时，从语法看有可能完全不合适，从而需要改变说法。

总之，我说不清。如果你查后能说更清楚最好告诉我也。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-4 21:23:13编辑过]

jade_lee

以下是引用coteki在2004-7-4 21:05:00的发言：

200. Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place: one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(A)  Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(B)   If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(C)  If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals.

(D)  The finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective.

(E)   The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place.

Dangling or misplaced modifiers plague choices B, C, and D: in each case, the phrase if used repeatedly in the same place illogically modifies one reason rather than certain pesticides.

为什么指one reason而不能理解为指certain pesticides

问题：

在D 中:The finding that... is suggestive of one reason, if used ...., certain pesticides...为什莫 if 的逻辑主语也是one reason, 我认为也可能是finding, or certain pesticides.

Chamao

(B) (C) (D) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reasonà the phrase if used repeatedly in the same place illogically modifies one reason rather than certain pesticides.

我想你可以研究一下participial phrase 的修饰，如当分词构据为句首时，必须与主词一致。所以If used必修饰one reason.

linda05312

以下是引用Chamao在2005-1-20 10:20:00的发言：

(B) (C) (D) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reasonà the phrase if used repeatedly in the same place illogically modifies one reason rather than certain pesticides.

我想你可以研究一下participial phrase 的修饰，如当分词构据为句首时，必须与主词一致。所以If used必修饰one reason.

I could understand why B,C is wrong, but still confused of D.

In my opinion, "if used" modifies "certain pesticides " in D.

jade_lee

以下是引用Chamao在2005-1-20 10:20:00的发言：

(B) (C) (D) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reasonà the phrase if used repeatedly in the same place illogically modifies one reason rather than certain pesticides.

我想你可以研究一下participial phrase 的修饰，如当分词构据为句首时，必须与主词一致。所以If used必修饰one reason.

Chamao∶是否理解if 位于句中且省略主语时，其主语是前面最近的名词？

brissa

BC好说，if从句在先，主句在后，其逻辑主语要一致。

D的情况比较特殊，我自己也晕了半天，现在试着解释一下，希望有人能确认一下：

D：the finding... is...one reason, if used..., certain pesticides..

这里结构是：句子，if从句，句子，所以后面那个句子一定缺一个连词，另外one reason that＋从句，是固定搭配，所以我猜这里是在one reason后面少了个that, 而不是楼上说的if从句在中间，就优先往前指代。

new_land

以下是引用brissa在2005-9-22 13:11:00的发言：

BC好说，if从句在先，主句在后，其逻辑主语要一致。

D的情况比较特殊，我自己也晕了半天，现在试着解释一下，希望有人能确认一下：

D：the finding... is...one reason, if used..., certain pesticides..

这里结构是：句子，if从句，句子，所以后面那个句子一定缺一个连词，另外one reason that＋从句，是固定搭配，所以我猜这里是在one reason后面少了个that, 而不是楼上说的if从句在中间，就优先往前指代。

顶上去

对于D的问题，OG关于IF的解释，仍然不能理解，请NN帮忙确认一下!

homegirl

still don't understand why D  modifies "one reason"

homegirl

难道if used repeatedly in the same place是插入语，用来修饰前面的one reason?