og 13-86求大神

我名字真棒

题： In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

A.a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing
B.a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing
C.a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written
D.which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing
E.which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written
我觉得D,E错主要是因为which不对，因为，which修饰前面的词但是前面是drug，明显drug不能occurred、但是OG里面没有指出
而且AB选择中AB 可不可以变成，a phenomenon explained that .....因为之前看到这个的都是og说它redundant。
第一次发帖，谢谢大神们乐

vertex顶点

回复你的问题，首先，which不能指代一整句话，如果想指代前面这句话的现象：”In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs“必须使用同位语，即独立主格，进行补充说明。
第二，你所问的：”而且AB选择中AB 可不可以变成，a phenomenon explained that .....因为之前看到这个的都是og说它redundant。“ 这里的explained分词做定语修饰phenomenon表被动表完成可以的，没有redundant，你所谓的redundant肯定不只是这个结构，而是后面还有东西，由于后面的加的东西而变得redundant了，具体情况要具体分析

我名字真棒

vertex顶点 发表于 2013-9-11 11:20
回复你的问题，首先，which不能指代一整句话，如果想指代前面这句话的现象：”In 2000, a mere two dozen  ...

谢谢同学
which在这里是不是只能修饰drug，而不能修饰整个句子，所以他错了。
第二个我明白了。因为动词的过去分词是可以做修饰语，直接修饰前面的词。就像phenomenon explained 这个意思是不是就是被解释的现象。但是原文是要解释这个现象，所以不对。
谢谢同学

vertex顶点

我名字真棒 发表于 2013-9-11 11:31
谢谢同学
which在这里是不是只能修饰drug，而不能修饰整个句子，所以他错了。
第二个我明白了。因为动词 ...

对，定语从句关系代词which/that在一般情况下只能仅前指代前面的先行词，但是，有时候是可以跳跃指代的。但是无论是仅前指代还是跳跃指代，都是指代一个名词而不能指代其他任何结构或者句子