扫描二维码，直接登录
射手彧 回复
小绵羊
:
8年前
This is 100% grammatically correct. I think the rhetorical emphasis on the subject makes it clear who will do the marrying. Let's say this one is 90% clear. If we didn't mention the queen, that would be 100% correct
wandishang 回复
小绵羊
:
8年前
Ron的解释，认为so as to...是接的indirect intention，而这句里marry Anne是King sought to have marriage to Queen annulled的direct intention，所以这种情况下应该用so that...会比so as to好。
Agsh 回复
jiaqingling
:
8年前
我觉得是因果推理
dooou 回复
adaugherty
:
8年前
赞！
维尼 回复
adaugherty
:
8年前
666
XiaoM 回复
adaugherty
:
8年前
这条规则看起来很好用啊！
我就吃不肥 回复
adaugherty
:
8年前
为什么这里比较的是两个动作啊...难道不应该是circulation吗。。。
吴小悠悠悠悠悠悠 回复
adaugherty
:
8年前
解决了一直的困惑，超级赞！
vonrueden.cruz 回复
XiaoM
:
8年前
This sentence correctly compares leaf cutters and other antswith raider ants, but the prepositional phrase in having nests
suggests that it is raider ants, not leaf cutters and most other
ants, that have nests situated underground or in pieces of wood;
however, the rest of the sentence indicates that in fact raider
ants’ nests are not situated in such locations.
这是OG的解释，感觉怪怪的，有人能解释下吗？
XiaoM 回复
vonrueden.cruz
:
8年前
我觉得OG的解释是说：按照D选项的表述，这个句子暗示了 ”in having nests situated underground or in pieces of wood"这个行为是raider ants发出的，而不是它的比较对象leaf cutters and most other ants. 但是逗号后面又说，"raider ants make a portable nests by..." 这样的话就前后矛盾并且构不成对比关系了。
vonrueden.cruz 回复
XiaoM
:
8年前
谢谢你的解答，OG解释我看懂了，我的问题是为什么”in having nests situated underground or in pieces of wood"这个行为是raider ants发出的？这个是跟在leaf cutters and most other ants的
XiaoM 回复
vonrueden.cruz
:
8年前
D里面，“unlike...in pieces of wood"是状语从句，后面raider ants开头的那句是主句，状语的主语是跟随主句主语的（独立主格除外），所以"in having nests... in pieces of wood"这个行为就成了raider ants发出的了。这个是我的理解...要待我再验证一下哈。
XiaoM 回复
vonrueden.cruz
:
8年前
我来更正一下我之前的说法。Unlike leaf cutters and most other ants in having nests situated underground or in pieces of wood这个句子确实是修饰raider ants没错的，不过这一部分是作为raider ants的前置定语存在的，不是状语哦。
射手彧 回复
elaine寶寶
:
8年前
谢谢原来联系在这里。。。
this sentence:they (= major economic shifts) are unable to be distinguished...
i don't like this, because we're not actually talking about an "inability" possessed by the economic shifts themselves.
if we'd said something like "economic shifts are unable to destroy your equity", then i'd find that more appealing.
但是如果换做cannot就不存在这样的问题