GWD-TN-11-Q3 As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed

nolanhym

Asthe honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, thisresults in the act of stinging causingthebee to sustain a fatal injury.

1. As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed,     staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing
   

As the heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays     where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

Honeybee’s     stinger, heavily barbed and staying where it is inserted, results in the     fact that the act of stinging causes

The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays     where it is inserted, and results in the act of stinging causing

The     honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with     the result that the act of stinging causes

OA - E

我可以理解C的逻辑错误。

但是不能理解E中with的用法，我以为with也是需要依附于主句主语存在的（stinger），那有何不同？作何解释？

谢谢各位

bobdog159

这里的with可以理解成伴随状语吧，表示一个结果，就是前半句话的结果，和 现在分词在句尾的功能差不多吧

IvyF

请问楼主，C的逻辑错误在哪里？

伊吹兔子

我是这么想的，C里面逗号中间的修饰部分拿掉，就是The honeybee’s stinger results in...

但实际的逻辑含义并不是蜜蜂的刺造成了这个结果，而应该是stinger因为barbe和stay这两个动作而导致了蜜蜂承受了巨大的伤害。

所以C的逻辑是不对的。而且the fact that好像一直都不太好……= =

zenglh1988

with引导独立主格结构，在句尾做伴随状语。with引导的独立主格结构作状语时，虽然与前面的句子存在紧密的逻辑关系，但是并不是说with引导的独立主格的逻辑主语就一定是句子的主语。注意区分：with引导的独立主格结构作定语修饰句中的名词的时候，with独立主格结构的逻辑主语一定是修饰的名词。

Effyue

c。逻辑问题，result in the fact that（wordy）。想问D除了逻辑不对还有问题么？？

DesmondWang

D中的语法错误，我要借用一下Ron大神的笔迹[ the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN]，所以in the act of stinging是错的。对于D有个个人的看法，觉得and results不好,因为 and表达两件independent的事，无法表达原句用as所要表达的语义
至于楼主说的E中的"with ...." prepositional modifier can modify either noun or verb(depend on context),前面加逗号——"，with”一般来说优先做adverbial modifier，所以是修饰前面的谓语（is barbed和stays）或者说修饰entire clause，也就是整个action。
= =

hellotomi

D中and前面有逗号，所以and后要有主谓宾。A中this不能指代前面的句子，B中应该是sentence fragment吧。C意思错了。不知道这样解释对不对，请指正！

michelle0324

first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
CORRECT. this time, the picture is actually of my cousin, so we're good.

therefore, (a) and (d) are wrong because of "...results in the act of stinging causing...".

--

the pronoun "this" in (a) doesn't refer to any particular noun. this consideration also kills (a).

--


you can't say "the stinger results in...".
"results in..." can only be used when it's LITERALLY TRUE. for instance, you could say that the attempt resulted in failure, since the attempt ITSELF ended in failure.
if you understand this literal meaning, then it goes without saying that you can't use this sort of construction for physical objects.
TAKEAWAY:
you can only say "X results in Y" when X is an ACTION. if X is an OBJECT, you can NEVER say that X "results" in anything.
this kills choices (c) and (d), in which "stinger" is the subject of the verb "results".

--

choice (b) misuses the connector "as".
the connector "as" connects two independent clauses BY ITSELF. if "as" is used to connect two independent clauses, it should NOT be used in conjunction with any other connector words.

in choice (b), "as" and "with" are used together. the use of either of these prohibits the use of the other, so this choice is wrong.

Alfred770

ACTION　results in ．．．．．
sting results in ...... is wrong 所以CD　ｋｉｌｌ
A的　this指代不明
AS .....With很奇怪