babypace暂别G

wwwhahchn

86版OG-43

The United States petroleum industry’s cost to meet environmental regulations is projected at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum by the end of the decade.

(A) The United States petroleum industry’s cost to meet environmental regulations is projected at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum by the end of the decade.

(B) The United States petroleum industry’s cost by the end of the decade to meet environmental regulations is estimated at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum.

(C) By the end of the decade, the United States petroleum industry’s cost of meeting environmental regulations is projected at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum.

(D) To meet environmental regulations, the cost to the United States petroleum industry is estimated at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum by the end of the decade.

(E) It is estimated that by the end of the decade the cost to the United States petroleum industry of meeting environmental regulations will be ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum.

Choice A, B, C, and D are awkward and confusing. In A, for example, the issue is not the industry’s cost but the cost to the industry; also, to meet should be of meeting here, projected at is unidiomatic, and by the end of the decade is placed so that its meaning is unclear. B and C suffer from many of the same problems. The wording of D implies that cost… is estimated in order to meet environmental regulations. E alone makes a logical statement and varies verb tense to indicate that the issue is present estimates of future costs. The question is moderately difficult.

E选项不是把cost和of分开了吗？？按照第10版OG的说法这是错的呀，我就是根据这个选了A，郁闷中

大家讨论一下

babypace

以下是引用wwwhahchn在2005-9-11 21:16:00的发言：


我现在逻辑最衰了，速度慢而且正确率低，而且因为每次读逻辑题都很费时间，我怕来不及，所以经常读到一个选项觉得是对的就不往下看了，结果一对答案，错一堆，其实正确答案也很明显，只是因为放在了后面，前面的选项又很具迷惑性，哎，痛苦

后面几套和天山的逻辑有些搞得。我一般逻辑不会超过2个。最近反常。争议题多了。另外自己白痴级别也高了一点点。

babypace

以下是引用wwwhahchn在2005-9-11 21:21:00的发言：

语法讨论：

10th OG-110：

It has been estimated that the annual cost to the United States of illiteracy in lost industrial output and tax revenues is at least $20 billion a year.

(A)the annual cost to the United States of illiteracy in lost industrial output and tax revenues is at least $20 billion a year

(B)the annual cost of illiteracy to the United States is at least $20 billion a year because of lost industrial output and tax revenues

(C)illiteracy costs the United States at least $20 billion a year in lost industrial output and tax revenues

(D)$20 billion a year in lost industrial output and tax revenues is the annual cost to the United States of illiteracy

(E)lost industrial output and tax revenues cost the United States at least $20 billion a year because of illiteracy

In choices A, B, and D, the combined use of annual and a year is redundant. Choices A, D, and E are awkward and confused because other constructions intrude within the phrase cost... of illiteracy: for greatest clarity, cost should be followed immediately by a phrase (e.g., of illiteracy ) that identifies the nature of the cost. Choice E is particularly garbled in reversing cause and effect, saying that it is lost output and revenues rather
than illiteracy that costs the United States over $20 billion a year. Choice B is wordy and awkward, and idiom requires in rather than because of to introduce a phrase identifying the constituents of the $20 billion loss. Concise, logically worded, and idiomatic, choice C is best.

接下一帖

The United States petroleum industry’s cost to meet environmental regulations is projected at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum by the end of the decade.

(A) The United States petroleum industry’s cost to meet environmental regulations is projected at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum by the end of the decade.

(B) The United States petroleum industry’s cost by the end of the decade to meet environmental regulations is estimated at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum.

(C) By the end of the decade, the United States petroleum industry’s cost of meeting environmental regulations is projected at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum.

(D) To meet environmental regulations, the cost to the United States petroleum industry is estimated at ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum by the end of the decade.

(E) It is estimated that by the end of the decade the cost to the United States petroleum industry of meeting environmental regulations will be ten percent of the price per barrel of refined petroleum.

Choice A, B, C, and D are awkward and confusing. In A, for example, the issue is not the industry’s cost but the cost to the industry; also, to meet should be of meeting here, projected at is unidiomatic, and by the end of the decade is placed so that its meaning is unclear. B and C suffer from many of the same problems. The wording of D implies that cost… is estimated in order to meet environmental regulations. E alone makes a logical statement and varies verb tense to indicate that the issue is present estimates of future costs. The question is moderately difficult.

E选项不是把cost和of分开了吗？？按照第10版OG的说法这是错的呀，我就是根据这个选了A，郁闷中

3w mm，我是这么想的，不知道对不对， 我语法也不好的。

我觉得Og110里面的紫色高亮部分的确会造成歧义。cost to the United States of illiteracy 是美国文盲给美国造成的cost，还是 xxx对美国文盲造成的cost? 所以不能这样写。要变成cost of illiteracy to the united states，这样就是第一种解释了，没有歧义。

cost to the United States petroleum industry of meeting environmental regulations 这题不会歧义。因为meeting是个动名词，不会理解成名词‘开会’的，因为做会议解释就要写成 xxx meeting。既然meeting是动名词，那发出者就是前面的petroleum industry，没有别的理解了。所以可以这样写。反过来说，如果meeting ......这部分可以是名词的话，可就可能会有所有格，那会产生歧义了。类似上面那题,united states和illiteracy都可以有of 所有格，而且都是通的。就有歧义了。这里的meeting environmental regulations不能有所有格，所以不会歧义。

我觉得语法很鬼，一定要具体题目具体分析，有时候一个相同的结构在不同的句子里都不能互相证明用法是正确的。看具体情况。所以类比不能全都适用的。

my 2 cents。

wwwhahchn

以下是引用babypace在2005-9-12 0:06:00的发言：

3w mm，我是这么想的，不知道对不对， 我语法也不好的。

我觉得Og110里面的紫色高亮部分的确会造成歧义。cost to the United States of illiteracy 是美国文盲给美国造成的cost，还是 xxx对美国文盲造成的cost? 所以不能这样写。要变成cost of illiteracy to the united states，这样就是第一种解释了，没有歧义。

cost to the United States petroleum industry of meeting environmental regulations 这题不会歧义。因为meeting是个动名词，不会理解成名词‘开会’的，因为做会议解释就要写成 xxx meeting。既然meeting是动名词，那发出者就是前面的petroleum industry，没有别的理解了。所以可以这样写。反过来说，如果meeting ......这部分可以是名词的话，可就可能会有所有格，那会产生歧义了。类似上面那题,united states和illiteracy都可以有of 所有格，而且都是通的。就有歧义了。这里的meeting environmental regulations不能有所有格，所以不会歧义。

我觉得语法很鬼，一定要具体题目具体分析，有时候一个相同的结构在不同的句子里都不能互相证明用法是正确的。看具体情况。所以类比不能全都适用的。

my 2 cents。

蛮有道理的，还要好好体会一下，这个好像很需要语感，baby厉害

wwwhahchn

今天上午去看考场了，奇怪，好像GMAT和GRE是在一起的，外面有几个考生坐在那里，表情凝重，那会儿是10点多，应该是考完数学出来休息的吧，紧张

wwwhahchn

哎呀，刚问了，南京考场的屏幕是凸的，那种看着好难受啊，是不是其他考点也是凸的啊？？

AegeanSea2006

以下是引用wwwhahchn在2005-9-12 14:52:00的发言：
哎呀，刚问了，南京考场的屏幕是凸的，那种看着好难受啊，是不是其他考点也是凸的啊？？

mm说的是那种普通的显示器吧，好像北京的是平面的...

wwwhahchn

以下是引用AegeanSea2006在2005-9-12 16:40:00的发言：


mm说的是那种普通的显示器吧，好像北京的是平面的...

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-12 23:45:10编辑过]

zx_nju

南京考场条件这么差啊！

vacationer

以下是引用wwwhahchn在2005-9-12 14:52:00的发言：
哎呀，刚问了，南京考场的屏幕是凸的，那种看着好难受啊，是不是其他考点也是凸的啊？？

3W是在南大考吗? 我三年多前在那儿考过GRE, 忘了是凹的还是凸的了,不过记忆中条件好像很不错的样子. 呵呵, 即使条件很差也不要影响考试的情绪哦