求个逐项排除,援手个,感谢!

AmoHolmes

At an orientation meeting, the travelers were told that a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed by each of them.

A.    a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed by each of them
B.    they would need a visa, a landing card, and evidence of their being inoculated against typhoid fever
C.    they would need evidence of being inoculated against typhoid fever and a visa and landing card
D.    they would each need a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever
E.    they would need visas, landing cards, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever for each of them.


答案D.

请问A有什么不妥?

kiwifoodtown

A，被动语态不如主动表达简洁，明了。而且each of them指代不明。

TerraceHo

pronoun ambiguity
A、them可能指代travelers或者“a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever”整體
e.g. mary and rose are friends. and they are girls.-->they指代and結構的整體
D、they只能指代travelers

pissunrise

我觉得A中的 them 没有 ambiguity 的问题

设 a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever  = V

从语义上来说的话, 如果 them 指代回 V, 就变成 V would be needed by each of them(= V)

V被自己需要么?  

A选项应该还是被动的问题, 因为在这里 they 很明显是 need 动作的发出者, 用被动的话不如主动好因为不能突出动作发出者.  假如后面没有 they 这个动作发出者的话, 被动时态也挺好的.

A visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed.

E选项中的 them 应该是有 ambiguity 的问题. them从语义上说指代前面的一串名词V, 但是主语they指代travelers, 在一个句子结构中 they 和 them 应该指代同一个事物.

TerraceHo

我觉得A中的 them 没有 ambiguity 的问题

设 a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever  = V

从语义上来说的话, 如果 them 指代回 V, 就变成 V would be needed by each of them(= V)

V被自己需要么?  

A选项应该还是被动的问题, 因为在这里 they 很明显是 need 动作的发出者, 用被动的话不如主动好因为不能突出动作发出者.  假如后面没有 they 这个动作发出者的话, 被动时态也挺好的.

A visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed.

E选项中的 them 应该是有 ambiguity 的问题. them从语义上说指代前面的一串名词V, 但是主语they指代travelers, 在一个句子结构中 they 和 them 应该指代同一个事物.

-- by 会员 pissunrise (2013/1/24 11:19:40)

理解ls意思~
我知道把them理解成and結構illogical，但僅僅根據manhattan所說選出eligible antecedents的rules，不能排除and結構的可能性。
另，meaning不能成為判斷antecedent的absolute rule，在很多官題也出現過即使meaning不恰當也是potential antecedents的情況...

關於active voice and passive voice
在原句grammatically right的情況下，我認為應該遵循原句的meaning..
A用passive voice，強調的是WHAT IS NEEDED-->visa, card, and evidence
D用active voice，強調的是WHO NEEDED-->travelers
雖然active voice seems to be more concise than passive voice，但根據follow the author's intent.. 難道不應該選A？..
所以我才認為存在grammatical problem..

open to discussion!~

pissunrise

理解ls意思~
我知道把them理解成and結構illogical，但僅僅根據manhattan所說選出eligible antecedents的rules，不能排除and結構的可能性。
另，meaning不能成為判斷antecedent的absolute rule，在很多官題也出現過即使meaning不恰當也是potential antecedents的情況...

關於active voice and passive voice
在原句grammatically right的情況下，我認為應該遵循原句的meaning..
A用passive voice，強調的是WHAT IS NEEDED-->visa, card, and evidence
D用active voice，強調的是WHO NEEDED-->travelers
雖然active voice seems to be more concise than passive voice，但根據follow the author's intent.. 難道不應該選A？..
所以我才認為存在grammatical problem..

open to discussion!~
-- by 会员 TerraceHo (2013/1/24 14:39:17)

嗯... 我发现你Manhattan看得好仔细啊 TX...    ps. 写完回头突然发现这解释好长.. 好吧... 但是大部分都是引用的例子, 自己的话没多少..

1). 我同意把判断标准限定在and 结构时, them可以指代回and结构的, 但是判断选项的正误不能仅从一个语段来看吧, 当结合句子前面的内容来看是无歧义的.
        比如OG13-Q8.  
        In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure at Giza were closed to visitors for cleaning and repair due to moisture exhaled by tourists, which raised its humidity to such levels so that salt from the stone was crystallizing and fungus was growing on the walls.

        正解E, because moisture exhaled by tourists had raised the humidity within them to such levels that salt from the stone was crystallizing.
         OG部分解释: The causal sequence is clear, and “them” clearly refers to “chambers”;

        重点是 C, because tourists were exhaling moisture, which had raised the humidity within them to levels such that salt from the stone would crystallize
        OG部分解释: the pronoun “them” seems to refer to “tourists”, which is nonsensical;

        从语法角度来说, 在because 引导的句子中, them确实在指代tourists吧, 没有ambiguity. 但是是nonsensical的指代.

我同意meaning不是判断antecedent的absolute rule, 但是是当meaning表达不清楚的时候, 才不能作为判断的绝对标准. 在很多时候都是需要靠meaning来排除.  我认为 grammar rule 存在的意义是为了让 meaning 表达清晰无异义. 当最终目的meaning已经清楚的表达的时候, 作为手段的 rule 也就无所谓了.

        如本题中的A. a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed by each of them.  
        此时很明显them不会再重复前面这一串名词的意思. 要按Manhattan给出的规则来说, 就是代词一般不会指代前面刚刚出现的名词

        再比如第五版Manhattan. Pronouns. What About Pronoun Ambiguity 一节出现的一个句子
        Supernovas destroy their immediate environments in vast explosions, but by synthesizing heavy chemical elements, THEY provide the universe with the possibility  of biochemistry-based life as we know it.

        这是个正确的句子. they前面有多个potential antecedents : Supernovas, explosions, environment (或者再加上一个 elements, 这个由另一个规则判断, 参OG13-Q43.C)

        如果仅仅以语法规则来说明的话, 应该是存在歧义的问题吧. 但, 以下引自Manhattan:
        Supernovas is the subject of the first clause. The THEY is also in subject position in the second clause, which is parallel to the first clause. Even though there are at least 2 possible antecedents (Supernovas and Explosions), you know that THEY clearly refers to supernovas. The GMAT would consider this sentence acceptable.  ..blablabla....  The subject is the most important noun in the sentence; thus, it generally makes the best antecedent, as this very sentence demonstrates.

综上所述, 我认为本题中表达的意思十分清晰, them不会出现ambiguity, 指代and结构的问题

2). 如你所说, 官方题目出现meaning不恰当也是 potential antecedent 的情况, 我印象中也蛮多的, 但是都是在错误选项的解释里面. 如1)中例子的C.

如果你发现有哪一个正确句子里面代词是以一个meaning不恰当的名词作为真正的antecedent的话, 请一定一定指出来...

3). 关于改变原句意思. 大部分情况下, 是应该遵循原句的meaning, 甚至时态也不能改, 但是也存在  正确选项轻微改变原句的意思  这种情况的出现. 例句实在想不起来了, 想到了再回来补吧  = =.  

但是大部分情况下, 比如状语变成限定修饰语的时候, 这种改变原句意思是错误的.
比如OG13-Q25. Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain....
A是正解.     看C. Neuroscientists amassing a wealth of knowledge about ...
摘自千行Excel. amassing作为adj修饰神经学家（改变了句意，原句没有限定神经学家的范围）



以上解释如果觉得不够清晰的话, 你就需要一位牛人给你解答.