"if you see a SPLIT between "will" and "would", then it's most likely that we are dealing with a tense issue.
* if we are actually talking about an event that has not occurred yet -- i.e., an event that is genuinely in the future -- then we should usually use "will".
* if we are talking about an event that was still a future event at the time described in the sentence (but is no longer a future event), then we should use "would".
a couple of examples:
several experts have predicted that brazil will win the world cup in 2014. (as of this writing it is not 2014 yet, so the future tense is appropriate)
last year, several experts predicted that brazil would win this year's world cup. (this year's world cup is now over, so it's inappropriate to use the future tense. therefore, we use "would", which is a tense that we use to describe something that was once a future event, but is no longer)
in ancient times, the mayans predicted that the world will end in the year that corresponds to A.D. 2012 on the modern gregorian calendar. (2012 has not happened yet, so we still use the future tense for the prediction -- even though the prediction was made a really, really long time ago)"
1 * if you have than/as + subject + FORM OF "TO BE" as the second half of a comparison, then you must have another form of "to be" in the first half of the comparison.
or, there should be something in the first half that would make sense with "to be" in front of it.
2 * if you have than/as + subject + HELPING VERB as the second half of a comparison, you can have just about any other form of the same verb in the first part, as determined by context.
3 * if you have than/as + subject + FORM OF "TO DO" as the second half of a comparison, then you must have an ACTION VERB[/b] (or another form of "to do") in the first half of the comparison.
here are some examples:
#1
the air quality of las vegas is higher this year than it was in 2005.
also
parking spots are disappearing much more quickly today than they were yesterday.
#2
james can negotiate with salespeople more effectively than stephanie can. (comparing their abilities)
james can negotiate with salespeople more effectively than he does. (his ability exceeds his actual performance, probably because he just isn't trying very hard)
#3
parking spots disappeared much faster today than they did yesterday.
tanya eats more slowly than she did when she was a teenager. (note that "did" doesn't have to have the same tense as the action verb)"
A and they subsidize与前面的offer a variety of programs在层级上不是一个级别的，subsidize public nurseries and kindergartens应该是属于programs之一。 另外for要表示目的，后面一般跟n.，跟doing是表示原因。
B to include ...和后面的subsidizing不平行，而且to include本身不正确。
C to assist working parents是目的，但是to include paid maternity and paternity leaves, ... and to subsidize ...不是目的，是达到目的的方式，三者不能并行。
D which includes中includes要用复数，先行词是复数的programs
E 正确。 to assist working parents表示目的， including...列举programs。 分别是leaves, allowances和public nurseries and kindergartens.
用排除法
应该是evidence of the close relationship between dinosaurs and birds, 所以the close relationship和between dinosaurs and birds不能分开用，between dinosaurs and birds是定语用来修饰the close relationship. 另外dramatic是adj，放在名词前面。more dramatic evidence有歧义，要用evidence that is more dramatic than ...来表示dramatic的比较，或者用more evidence that is dramatic than ...来表示更多。
所以可以排除BCE
D that have yet been discovered是限制性定语从句，修饰的是dinosaurs and birds， "现在已经发现的恐龙和鸟类”，但是发现的是evidence。
A P是基于现在的情况来做的预估。 现在没法官出去授课，是因为现在就禁止有偿上课啊。it was coupled with a ban ...
B 因果搞反了。这里没说到因果，说的是某一个方案有没有效果。
C 因为支出了没有副作用，所以方案有用。
D 只是反对M的说法，没给出论据。给出理由了。
E 对大多数人有用就是对所有人有用。没提到。
先排除CD，主语是discovery单数，谓语是are responsible复数。
E 主句缺乏谓语。that Earth's inner core, rotating ..., is responsible for ... its direction.
剩下AB
B里边how heat from the inner core flows through the outer planet和the formation and periodic reversal不平行。
Here is Ron's explanation of why B, C, D and E are wrong:
"(B) you can't use 'that' in this sort of construction, because constructions using 'that of' (or other preposition after 'that') must have EXACTLY parallel structures. in other words, if the second half says 'that during 10,000 years', then the preceding half must say 'the growth of ___ during something else' (or some other time preposition, such as before or after, in place of during).
there's nothing ungrammatical about 'from when', because the clause starting with 'when' is a perfectly legitimate noun clause (i.e., 'when agriculture began' serves as a noun. however:
- it's possible that the gmat does consider such constructions wrong; the only way to tell is to see if they say so in any official answer choices
- regardless of where the gmat stands on the issue, 'the beginning of agriculture' is unquestionably better than 'when agriculture began' (i.e., an actual noun is almost always superior to a circuitous noun clause, when possible)"
"(C) First, you've got a "which" modifier that isn't preceded by a comma, so that's an automatic failure. (note that you can use preposition + which without a comma -- e.g., the box in which you placed your valuables -- but you cannot do so with just plain "which".)
more importantly, "had been" is not parallel to anything in the other half of the sentence; in order to use a parallel structure that contains a form of "to be", you must have another form of "to be" in the other half of the parallel structure.
check out more details here:
http://www.beatthegmat.com/soar-t62473-15.html#280069"
"(D) you can't use the present perfect if the time interval is over. If the trend continues into the present day, then the present perfect is appropriate.
Even if that were fixed, choice D still suffers from fatal wordiness / lack of concision, especially in comparison to the correct choice."
"(E) The growth of the global economy since 1990 exceeds what it did for the 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture.
'what it did' doesn't make any sense:
* the growth didn't 'do' anything
* there's no other verb to which 'did' could logically be parallel to complete the comparison"
A T是唯一的酶....， the only没说
B T是唯一不出现在哪里的酶, the only body tissues，没说
C 骨髓细胞里边出现T不一定就是得了骨髓癌。对的
D 骨髓癌比其他组织癌发展得快，没说
E T酶在癌组织中的产生速度要比非癌组织里要快，说不定骨髓细胞里边的level更高呢
(C) "they" would have to refer to "soaring television costs", by elimination: there aren't any other plural nouns.
literally, this makes no sense, since television costs weren't "soaring" in OTHER elections.
(note that you MUST take the pronoun to stand for "soaring television costs"; you are NOT allowed to extract just "television costs" and pretend that the pronoun stands only for that.)
"have been" is an even bigger problem, though, since it implies the presence of "accounting". you can't do this unless the word "accounting" is actually present elsewhere in the sentence; it isn't.
actually, for those choices to make sense, "it" would have to be "proportion". (the proportion was greater in '92 than it was in any previous election.)
if "it/they" = "the cost(s)", then it's nonsense to use "was/were". you'd have to have "represented", "accounted for", "amounted to", etc.
'they have' or 'they did' can't make this option acceptable because "have"/"did" can't stand for "accounted for".
RON:
"essential vs. nonessential modifier".
NOTE: i've never seen this issue directly tested, so it's not important for you to be able to distinguish between the two -- the only thing that's important is for you to realize that both are ok, under certain circumstances
an "essential" modifier (which is NOT set off by commas) is a modifier that actually narrows or specifies the noun/action to which it's attached.
for instance:
our top student whose score fell below 50 received a consolation prize.
--> this doesn't refer to the top student among all of our students; this only refers to the top student among those whose scores fell below 50 points. therefore, we need the essential modifier (no commas) to narrow "our students" to "students whose score fell below 50".
a "nonessential" modifier (which IS set off by commas) is a modifier that does not narrow or specify the nouns/action to any greater degree than does the rest of the sentence; it merely provides more information about that noun/action.
for instance:
our top student, whose score fell below 50, received a consolation prize.
--> here, we are actually talking about our top student. the meaning of the sentence is that all of our students' scores were below 50, but at least our top student received a consolation prize.
(D) Importantly, in this sort of structure (NOUN1 + prep + NOUN2 + THAT..., or NOUN1 + (modifier ending with NOUN2) + THAT...), the "that"-modifier can actually modify either NOUN1 or NOUN2.
for instance:
the library has a new method of sorting cd's that makes certain genres of music easier to find. --> here, "that makes..." refers to the method of sorting.
the library has a new method of sorting cd's that don't fit into any of the traditional musical genres. --> here, "that don't fit..." refers to the cd's, not the method.
both sentences are correct.
however, in the example above, either of these two interpretations leads to an absurd sentence -- neither the method (= NOUN1) nor the mineral (= NOUN2) "was as early as the 18th century" -- so this option is flat-out incorrect.
(E) inappropriate tense.
if the past perfect is used to describe a state or description of something (as opposed to an action verb), it should generally be used to describe a state/description that is no longer the case. since leaching is presumably still an extraction method (this is not the sort of thing that is subject to change), the past perfect is inappropriate.
also, the modifier (starting with "well established") shouldn't be a nonessential modifier, i.e., it shouldn't be set off by commas.
"until healing" would apply to the subject "swelling and stiffness". those don't heal; the injured area does. therefore, you need a construction that changes the subject to "the injured area" -- or a pronoun that stands for those words, as in the actual correct answer.
扫描二维码，直接登录
看了这道题目半天，其实排出ABC后... 这个句子是缺乏一个动词的，按照这种逻辑其实也可以容易地排除 e