C By making use of water instead of restrictions the subject of the that
clause, this version of the sentence necessitates the use of a wordy and
indirect passive infinitive phrase to be restricted.
A It makes no sense to say that a hypothetical increase in river level is
appreciative. The past tense of the verb resulted in this context does not as
clearly express the temporal relationships between the announcement and
the other events as would the past perfect had resulted.
D. This variant seems to suggest, illogically, that Cavendish devised an instrument
from several objects plus employment; using employed instead of employment of
would be one way of correctly pairing his two actions.
C. Connecting the three parts of the sentence with two occurrences of and is
awkward; the first two parts are best connected by and, but the final portion
expressing what Cavendish achieved would be better expressed, for example, as a
new sentence beginning, In 1797–1798, he employed.
D As in (A) and (B), the beginning of this sentence is inconsistent with the
rest of it. The opening phrase claims to describe preparations for a
prediction, whereas the latter part of the sentence indicates that the
preparations are for a predicted earthquake.
A In this version of the sentence, the opening phrase illogically claims that
the California Office is preparing for a prediction, but later in the sentence it
becomes clear that the preparations are targeted to the aftermath of a
possible earthquake, not its prediction.
扫描二维码，直接登录
C By making use of water instead of restrictions the subject of the that
clause, this version of the sentence necessitates the use of a wordy and
indirect passive infinitive phrase to be restricted.