一个很简单但又容易错的题,GMAT的数学,细心再细心哈。-25,-24,-23,-22.。。。。22,23,(24是没有的)。
为什么这题考点不在主被动呀,B选项中使用被动形式就省略了动作合理发出者呀?
after falling还是看成一个简单的状语比较好
从N的条件可知分数可能的结果是5,4,3,2,1, 共15分。三个队共有15分,没有一个队超过6分,则任两个队的分不会超过12分,得分最少的队最少为15-12=3
总成本等于数量✖️单价,单价虽然增加,但是数量减少,a所提到的所有issue 发行的成本可能还是不变的。而每本杂志价格没有变,总成本也不变。因此a的利润没变。
哎 太难想到了
360+6%(T-1000)=8%T
2%T=300
T=15000
读句子,E有断句,导致意思不容易被理解。
看题时最绕的是名字。。。看半天要分清楚两个地方,还要分清楚两个地方的酒店。。。
them
两句话有逻辑关系不能用独立主格
at any other time;比较对象是车,不是时段;
(A) one quarter加后面的部分应该是一个可数项,而less修饰不可数名词,且用less的话,前面要用there is,故用less错误;that many的表达unidiomatic。
(B) Correcet;补全省略即there are fewer than one-quarter as many (as there were in the late 1950s); fewer修饰可数名词正确;
(C) amount修饰不可数名词,不能用来修饰4,000(drive-ins)这个可数的量。
(D) the number指代不清;the amount指代不清,只能修饰不可数名词;the number is less没有问题,less和smaller都可以修饰数字。
(E) it没有指代对象,that amount指代4,000 drive-ins错。
太厉害了!!!问一下b选项为什么后面全都可以省略啊。。。看着结尾as many 我都直接排除这选项了 真的头大
好清楚!借用了
B补全省略即 there are fewer than one-quarter as many (as there were in the late 1950s)
few修饰可数名词,less修饰不可数
amount修饰不可数
prohibit不能加不定式
in the case of "prohibit", you can also just prohibit an activity (noun or gerund).
period.
i can prohibit smoking in my house. in this case, "smoking in my house" is the direct object of "prohibit", and there's no "from" anywhere because i don't mention who's smoking.
--> i can prohibit smoking
--> i can prohibit smokers from lighting up
d的with作状语修饰最近句子的动作,after falling需要修饰一个紧接着的动作,或者看成是伴随,逻辑主语应该是profits,都讲不通
"after" isn't a parallel signal. it can introduce another verb, but it doesn't have to; it can also be followed by -ING, or even by a noun, in these cases.
i came home after i finished printing the report
i came home after working out
i came home after midnight
... all correct
"after __ing" should describe something that happens pretty much right on the heels of "__ing" (i.e., there should not be a long interim between the action/event represented by "__ing" and that represented by the verb).
1)Sequences of actions are normally in parallel. If two description happened at the same time, they shouldn't be parallel. Instead, use "comma + ing" to modify.
2)", then ing…" is NOT right, because the action of "comma + ing" is in the same time-frame as the main verb.