考察parallel
句子主干 Examples include brain growth…and an increase in neurons…
If you say \"when + PAST PARTICIPLE\", then this automatically applies to the SUBJECT of the clause to which it\'s attached.
，即主语examples，而并不是语义上的mice，所以AD错误
D的they指代也错了，Ron原话：
"they" is totally wrong in (d). it would automatically refer to "neurons", since "canaries' " is possessive and therefore ineligible to be the referent.
A. 不是fail to provide adequate services，是提供合适的service却需要更高的input
BE错误
C. 本意并不是recommend a particular change推荐一种改变方法，只是举个例子
D. Theoretical literature offers conflicting views on whether nonprofit hospitals are less financially efficient. 正确
earliest date at which it is known的意思是“知道xxx”的最早日期（被提前）
earliest date at which xxx are known to的意思是已知的“xxx这件事发生“的最早日期（被提前）
C和E：现在时known to do，过去式known to have done，后者对，因为发生在过去
D: of what即为 of the price that the drug's maker charges 那完整就是the price of the price that drug's maker charges, 所以不对。
C. that引导定语从句three times the price that the drug's maker charges for another product，正确
A. 在直接竞争中被干掉的是旗舰店，过去可以复原是因为旗舰店还在，可以吸引顾客，现在”母体“没了，所以吸引不到顾客了
If shops depended on something that attracted customers towards old market, now that attraction is removed and customers will not come back.
This gives us the reason why author thinks that business will not come back.
choice (b) starts out with “With 20 percent of the world's fresh water, that is more than ...”
this could potentially be read in two ways, both of which are incorrect:
(INCORRECT READING 1)
"that" is a pronoun (in the same way you'd point at a menu and say "i want that")
to use that in this way - by itself as a pronoun, as a "pointing word" - is always incorrect in formal written english.
"that" CAN be used as a pronoun, but only if it's in a parallel construction (such as the capacity of tank A vs. that of tank B).
(INCORRECT READING 2)
it's a relative pronoun (in the same way you'd write "here's the book that i read").
two things wrong here.
one, you don't put a comma before this kind of "that".
two, even if this were written correctly (i.e., without the comma), which it isn't, you'd still be saying 20% of the water that is more than the great lakes. i.e., there is SOME SPECIFIC water that is "more than the great lakes", and we're talking about 20% of that water. that doesn't make sense.
so, wrong either way.
choice (d) neither "lake" nor "water" would be a legitimate referent for this modifier -- you couldn't say "the lake is more than...", but neither could you say "the water is more than..."
this sentence will only make sense if the modifier is allowed to modify the preceding clause, which talks about holding water (because "holding more" actually makes sense).
if you are talking about choice (d) or choice (e), note that the modifiers in those choices are modifiers that modify nouns, not clauses. that's a problem in this case.
we can also knock out choice (d) because of wrong usage of "while"，It should be used in one of two circumstances:
(1) if the first act takes place during the second act, or (2) if there is some sort of contrast between the two acts - most of the time used as this way when used at the beginning
Both these situation doesn't apply to this answer right!
choice (e)： when you have an INITIAL MODIFIER THAT'S NOT A CLAUSE (i.e., it doesn't have its own subject and verb), then it must modify the immediately following noun.
example:
coming home from school, the wind blew me off my bike. --> INCORRECT, because the implication is that the wind itself was "coming home from school".
coming home from school, i was blown off my bike by the wind. --> correct (even though the passive voice is used).
--
same problem in choice (e), which implies that lake baikal itself is somehow "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined".
that doesn't make sense. The lake might hold an amount of water that is more than another amount of water, but the lake itself is not "more than" something.
the above rule is completely rigid, too; it doesn't allow for the modifier to be used in any other way.
In context, "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" is describing the preceding action/clause: "...LB holds more than %20 of the xxxx".
It can't just describe "%20 of the world's fresh water", because we can't write that "X amount of water is more than these lakes". That's nonsense.
We can, on the other hand, write "LB holds more than these lakes (do)". So that's what the modifier represents.
The use of these modifiers to represent entire clauses is common. See #86 in OG 13th (#83 in OG 12th).
Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core = If it were not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core
主句不能有instead，AB错误
C. would have to be 错误
E. would have done是“本可以...但没有“，是过去式，错误
扫描二维码，直接登录
考点是时态！！！