真心求教各位NN和斑斑 OG12-Q112 错误选项的解释

teddybearj4

112. As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with
such vision.


(A) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it
would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(B) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind as an adult.
(C) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500; qualifying it to be legally blind if an adult.
(D) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.
(E) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision, which
would deemed legally blind for an adult, would be rated about 20/500.




这道题的正确答案选D没有问题。但是感觉上ABCE涉及指代、分号、定语从句修饰、句子结构、语意好多东西，想把这几个错误选项的考点都挖尽了。但是有好几个知识点自己还不是很清楚，真心请求NN、斑斑们的帮助啊！！！！！！！！！！

(A)As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it
would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.

1、OG解释：It begins with a subordinate clause, whose subject is a baby; the subject of the main clause, it appears to refer back to baby. However, reading the main clause reveals that it is intended to refer to the sense of vision the first time it is used and to the baby the second time.这句话的意思是第一个it逻辑上到底应该指代a baby还是a sense of vision？根据平行指代it只能指代a baby呀？OG的意思是说这个it指代不清了吗？同样后面的那个it指代的是什么？后面的it应该是跟前一个it指代一样的吗？

(B)A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind as an adult.

1、or legally blind的主语是什么？我查了有别人的讨论帖上说“or legally blind”的主语跟that定语从句的主语一样应该是sense of vision，而vision不是人是不能用blind，逻辑上这个的主语应该是baby。

(C)As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500; qualifying it to be legally blind if an adult.

1、C选项明显的错误就是分号后面不是一个完整的句子。

2、我有个疑问就是前面的主句是不是没有因果关系，所以不能用as写成一个有因果关系的句子？

3、“its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500”这句话是不是逻辑上也跟原句的意思不一致？看D选项(with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500)觉得感觉意思是只能说本身这种病的得病几率是20/500，并不是说是baby出现的这种病是在10/500的几率？

(E) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision, which
would deemed legally blind for an adult, would be rated about 20/500.

1、which是指代sense of vision，然后跟的which的句子里的逻辑主语是不一致的，去掉which的从句，后面its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500的错误与C选项一致。

eshopaholic

A) 选项中的it 指代不清，可以是baby，也可以理解为sense of vision

eshopaholic

C 和 E 除去各种语法错误，明显改变了句意。

teddybearj4

A) 选项中的it 指代不清，可以是baby，也可以理解为sense of vision

-- by 会员 eshopaholic (2012/2/8 13:12:12)

当代词做主语的时候不是一般都满足平行指代的麽？那这个it一定是指代baby啊，为什么会指代sense of vision？

teddybearj4

C 和 E 除去各种语法错误，明显改变了句意。

-- by 会员 eshopaholic (2012/2/8 13:19:04)

C、E的改变句意是指这个吗？
“its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500”这句话是不是逻辑上也跟原句的意思不一致？看D选项(with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500)觉得感觉意思是只能说本身这种病的得病几率是20/500，并不是说是baby出现的这种病是在10/500的几率？

teddybearj4

自己顶顶~~

babybearmm

'teddybear啊，我个人觉得你不要试图"justify incorrect answers"，没用。比如A，"it"就是指代不清，OG说的那么绕，其实说白了，它就想说"it"指代不清，所以你就不用去理解这个指代模糊的"it"到底应该怎么去理解它，你能知道它指代不清，就足够了。同样，B选项，你问or legally blind的主语是什么？，其实这里legally blind的逻辑主语和“语法主语”就是不匹配，这就是个错误句子，不要去justify它。


2、我有个疑问就是前面的主句是不是没有因果关系，所以不能用as写成一个有因果关系的句子？
As引导的句子可以有好几种逻辑关系：因果、相似、"in the same time that"
所以不局限于因果。我个人觉得，C的as理解成"in the same time that"是可以的，也就是说"as"本身并不是C的主要问题。

3、“its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500”这句话是不是逻辑上也跟原句的意思不一致？看D选项(with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500)觉得感觉意思是只能说本身这种病的得病几率是20/500，并不是说是baby出现的这种病是在10/500的几率？
你理解错了。20/500是测视力的一个数值，美国这边视力都这么表示（其实我也不懂这两个值怎么算的...），美国这边用的scale和咱的不同，20/500就类似于咱国内的什么4.3（我也不知道具体多少哈，随便给个数）。这题跟疾病没关系。另外你引用的C这句话的意思跟D是一致的。

112. As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with
such vision.


(A) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it
would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(B) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind as an adult.
(C) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500; qualifying it to be legally blind if an adult.
(D) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.
(E) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision, which
would deemed legally blind for an adult, would be rated about 20/500.




这道题的正确答案选D没有问题。但是感觉上ABCE涉及指代、分号、定语从句修饰、句子结构、语意好多东西，想把这几个错误选项的考点都挖尽了。但是有好几个知识点自己还不是很清楚，真心请求NN、斑斑们的帮助啊！！！！！！！！！！

(A)As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it
would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.

1、OG解释：It begins with a subordinate clause, whose subject is a baby; the subject of the main clause, it appears to refer back to baby. However, reading the main clause reveals that it is intended to refer to the sense of vision the first time it is used and to the baby the second time.这句话的意思是第一个it逻辑上到底应该指代a baby还是a sense of vision？根据平行指代it只能指代a baby呀？OG的意思是说这个it指代不清了吗？同样后面的那个it指代的是什么？后面的it应该是跟前一个it指代一样的吗？

(B)A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500, or legally blind as an adult.

1、or legally blind的主语是什么？我查了有别人的讨论帖上说“or legally blind”的主语跟that定语从句的主语一样应该是sense of vision，而vision不是人是不能用blind，逻辑上这个的主语应该是baby。

(C)As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500; qualifying it to be legally blind if an adult.

1、C选项明显的错误就是分号后面不是一个完整的句子。

2、我有个疑问就是前面的主句是不是没有因果关系，所以不能用as写成一个有因果关系的句子？

3、“its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500”这句话是不是逻辑上也跟原句的意思不一致？看D选项(with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500)觉得感觉意思是只能说本身这种病的得病几率是20/500，并不是说是baby出现的这种病是在10/500的几率？

(E) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision, which
would deemed legally blind for an adult, would be rated about 20/500.

1、which是指代sense of vision，然后跟的which的句子里的逻辑主语是不一致的，去掉which的从句，后面its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500的错误与C选项一致。

-- by 会员 teddybearj4 (2012/2/8 12:17:17)

babybearmm

这题我觉得突破口还是从大处着眼：

1. The baby emerges from the womb
2. The baby's rudimentary sense of vision ~ 20/500
3. If same (~20/500) in an adult -> the adult is considered legally blind
以上算我自己的提纲吧，不考虑语法
信息量就是这3点

然后你就能看到错误选项都没说清楚逻辑关系（特别是第3点），都mixed-up了

teddybearj4

baby姐姐，我其实我发这个帖子的时候就是被错误选项弄得晕的不得了，一心想着怎么才能把错误的选项给改对了，把指代不清的指代清楚了，后来就发现我钻进死胡同里了……钻进牛角尖里了……

刚刚看了你另外一张给我回的帖子里面提到的分句之前的逻辑意思，然后在看回这题，我明白你说的为什么不要justify错误选项了！有些错误选项是可以通过微小的调整改成正确的，或者至少是说抛开concise之后是grammatical correct滴~但是有的错误选项，就是句子重心不对，就是表意不清楚，是没有办法改对的，无论你怎么想~

baby姐总是启发我们思考啊！

'teddybear啊，我个人觉得你不要试图"justify incorrect answers"，没用。比如A，"it"就是指代不清，OG说的那么绕，其实说白了，它就想说"it"指代不清，所以你就不用去理解这个指代模糊的"it"到底应该怎么去理解它，你能知道它指代不清，就足够了。同样，B选项，你问or legally blind的主语是什么？，其实这里legally blind的逻辑主语和“语法主语”就是不匹配，这就是个错误句子，不要去justify它。


2、我有个疑问就是前面的主句是不是没有因果关系，所以不能用as写成一个有因果关系的句子？
As引导的句子可以有好几种逻辑关系：因果、相似、"in the same time that"
所以不局限于因果。我个人觉得，C的as理解成"in the same time that"是可以的，也就是说"as"本身并不是C的主要问题。

3、“its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated about 20/500”这句话是不是逻辑上也跟原句的意思不一致？看D选项(with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500)觉得感觉意思是只能说本身这种病的得病几率是20/500，并不是说是baby出现的这种病是在10/500的几率？
你理解错了。20/500是测视力的一个数值，美国这边视力都这么表示（其实我也不懂这两个值怎么算的...），美国这边用的scale和咱的不同，20/500就类似于咱国内的什么4.3（我也不知道具体多少哈，随便给个数）。这题跟疾病没关系。另外你引用的C这句话的意思跟D是一致的。

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/2/9 21:33:11)

babybearmm

Glad it helps!!我是觉得你思考得真的很深入，这点很好，不过就怕走到了另一个极端——只见树木不见森林。有时候先从全局着眼，往往就能把选项锁定到1-2个，然后再看细节。

另外那个是Ron一再强调的，我也是慢慢体会到那真是诤言：
不要justify错误选项，而是知道它怎么错.
不要去质疑正确选项，而是思考它如何work，它的structure是什么，这个structure怎么推广（自己造句子，或者找类似的句子....这样来学习这个structure)