OG234 : can't find answer from previous po

ElegantViVi

234. The physical structure of the human eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters; infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long to be registered by the eye.
(A) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long to be registered by the eye
(B) however, the wavelength of infrared radiation--0.1 millimeters--is top long to be registered by the eye making it invisible
(C) infrared radiation, however, is invisible because its wavelength--0.1 millimeters--is too long for the eye to register it
(D) however, because the wavelength of infrared radiation is 0.1 millimeters, it is too long for the eye to register and thus invisible
(E) however, infrared radiation has a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long for the eye to register, thus making it invisible

Choice A, the best answer, is clear, idiomatic, and grammati­cally correct. In B, the misplaced participial phrase making it invisible modifies eye rather than wavelength, thus producing a confusing statement that distorts the meaning. In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing. Furthermore, in D, and thus invisible incorrectly modifies wavelength rather than infrared radiation. Choice E produces an illogical statement by using a restrictive clause introduced by that where a comma followed by the nonrestrictive "which" is required: a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters that is too long nonsensically suggests that not all wavelengths of 0.1 milli­meters are too long for the eye to register.

求教:

按照OG对 C, D , E的解释,

In C, D, and E the use of the second it is so imprecise as to be confusing. 那么是否可以理解为:

分号前面的it 所指代的对象应该跟分号后面一致呢?

B也是存在着跟C, D , E一样的情况,为什么OG就没说 B会有这种歧异呢?

lilyzy

请参考一下这个链接:

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=23&ID=27472

ElegantViVi

我看过先前的帖, 我爱宝宝有过类似的问题,

但也没明确定论, 或许这时就该用”矮子里拔将军”策略吧

ethyl

显然，分号前后的it可以指代不同对象

问题不在这里

B项it指代语法上讲没问题；逻辑错误。

classy

还是不太明白的是：

1、B中的it是不是语法上可能指代wavelength和infrared radiation中的一个呢？如果是，不是和CDE一样吗，为什么og里没有B？斑竹为什么说语法上没有问题啊？如果不是，又为什么？

2、C中it和its的指代是不是应该一样呢，因为同在分号后面的句子里，照说应该指一个东西，如果是这样的话，就是指radiation了，眼睛register 红外线为什么逻辑上不对呢？这其实也是有人问到的，应该是眼睛感觉到波长还是波？

amywangwei

顶！

看了前面的帖子，还是不明白，为什么C中的it语法上不是指代红外线？为什么和its的那个“它”不是指代同一个东西？是语法上有什么原则吗？逻辑上就更应该是指红外线了，眼睛怎么会感受波长而不是波呢？

 

huangyh03

我的理解，C中its指代infrared radiation's,后一个it语法上指代所在从句的主语wavelength,但逻辑上应该指代radiation,所以歧义。请NN指正

nymph2009

请问，前半句中， eye enables it to sense light of wavelengths up to 0.0005 millimeters 。。。

light of wavelength  / wavelength of light 是一个意思吗  光波波长？

AlienX

LS mm好細心.

我看ETS打錯了light of wavelength不合邏輯

wavelength怎可能possess light