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.
句子的整体结构应该是说Medicare covers the full cost of home health care, but (does) not (cover) (the full cost) of other nonhospital services.
A 平行错误；另外，where的用法错误，where引导定语从句的时候，先行词只能是具体的地点名词，排除。
B making beneficiaries pay 20 percent of the costs可以看做伴随状语，修饰整个句子，那么make的主语是medicare，语义不通；也可以看做前面other nonhospital services的后置定语，语义也不通，services本身不能make beneficiaries做什么。
E 同B
D which is unlike other ...如果修饰的是前面的home health care, 意思就成了home health care is unlike other nonhospital services in that ...，两个事之间没有因果关系，又或者一般我们会讲“A不像B，A怎么着怎么着”，不会讲“A不像B，B怎么着怎么着”？
(d) "the possible VERBing" is inferior to "possibly VERBing".
"and" doesn't make sense in context (it makes it seem as though the two effects must occur together); "or" makes more sense.
in general, ACTION NOUNS (adoption, destruction, etc.) don't imply that the subject of the sentence is performing the action; they usually refer to the general notion of that action.
by contrast, -ING forms do usually imply that the subject of the sentence is the actor.
here are two simpler sentences to illustrate:
i want to learn about adopting dogs --> implies that i actually want to adopt dogs myself.
i want to learn about the adoption of dogs --> i want to learn about dog adoption in general, but there is no implication that i actually want to adopt any canines into my own home.
"amount" is a construction that can only be used to refer to UNCOUNTABLE quantities -- i.e., continuous quantities / mass nouns, which are not divided into distinctly countable units.
for instance, you can have an "amount" of water, furniture, etc., but you CANNOT have an "amount" of people, items, etc.
this sentence is very clearly speaking about a countable quantity -- the number (not "amount") of drive-in theaters. since that's countable, any choice with "amount" can be eliminated immediately.
Ron:"twice as many", "one-quarter as many", etc. are not only acceptable as idiomatic expressions but also extremely common in the english language.
since this idiom is present in the correct answer, which was written by gmac, IT IS CORRECT.
In general, you won't need the second half of that construction if you have already mentioned the data elsewhere in the sentence.
the earlier part of this sentence already mentions the # of drive-ins in the u.s. in the 1950's, so it is not stated again. since it is not stated as part of an actual parallel construction, you don't need the second "as".
--
examples:
there were once 20 shirts on this shelf, but, now, barely half as many are left. --> i already mentioned the data (i.e., 20 shirts) earlier in the sentence, so it's not mentioned again.
there are barely half as many shirts on this shelf [i]as there were last week.[/i] --> i didn't mention this comparison point earlier, so i'm mentioning it now.
扫描二维码，直接登录
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。