Ron: As an analogy, here's a pair of sentences in which the comparable difference in meaning is much starker.
(1) Legal disputes in the field have been resolved satisfactorily more than ever before.
(2) Legal disputes in the field have been resolved more satisfactorily than ever before.
You can probably see the difference: #1 says that increasing numbers of legal disputes are being resolved in a manner that is truly satisfactory. #2, on the other hand, says that the degree to which the disputes' resolutions are satisfactory has been on the rise, but the resolutions still may not be truly satisfactory.
Although the difference is more subtle in this problem, it's the same idea.
* Choice B says that close integration occurs more frequently (or among more markets) than before, but that the degree of closeness of integration has NOT necessarily changed;
* Choice D, along with the original sentence, says that the degree to which the markets are closely integrated has gone up markedly.
A: lost more time无关
B: 两个公司对于job-related accidents的定义不同,P公司把更多的accidents 都归因成job-related accidents,所以显得accidents 比较多。他因削弱
C:sick more often无关
D:每个人有多个accident不影响accident 数量的计算
E:a single machine不影响accident 数量的计
A:shares(%) 无关
B:inventory-=sales+ 加强
C:who owns this brand. 无关
D:one of three brands of telephone无关
E:M sales-
原文的意思是telephones 的市场行情在去年比较好,但是在这种形势大好的情形下,M降价还不能增长sales的话,那么今年的advertising 也没办法保证sales+
考动名词形式
A项句意错了,主宾颠倒
C选项是现在分词短语做ways的定语,逻辑主语发出者不是new entrepreneurs , SVO,ing 不是修饰前面动词的吗?逻辑主语发出者不是new entrepreneurs 吗?
while pondering ethical dilemmas是伴随状语,这分词短语前添加连词形式的伴随状语非常常见,不能判断为错。
题目问的削弱而不是加强
GMAT 考的好细啊,这里又学到一个普通的名词做定语和所有格定语有区别,前者是所修饰名词的的子集 women teacher 老师群体中的女性(女老师); 后者有所属的意思,A of B, 是B的A 的意思,要根据语义来进行划分;
所以GMAT本质还是个逻辑考试,即便是在SC里面,表现在SV agreement;并列还是因果;是ing/从句/ 还是 to do 等等
so much as 强调甚至于, 实际上更多用bai法应为not so much as多用于否定句
1. not so much as…句型 ,相当于“not even…”, 所以通常翻译为“甚至不…,甚至没有…”.
He didn’t so much as ask me to set down.
他甚至没有请我坐下.
2. not so much …as…句型:基本意义和not as (or so)…as…一样,但是通常翻译为“与其说…不如说…”.:He was not so much angry as disappointed. 他与其说是生气,还不如说是失望了
as much as …1. 多”“多达”“整整”-封顶的数目(跟着题目一样的意思),2 强调“多”;“与……一样多”
so as to 后面的动词主语是其主句的主语
G和R公司为雇员提供保健服务,G公司甚至还给员工提供了胆固醇测试和治疗的费用,虽然提供了这项服务会多花费用但是G公司反而节省了资金,因为高胆固醇多年不治疗到后期就会花费更多的费用。R公司并于采取这项政策的动机,因为R公司的员工呆的时间没有G公司的长,如果员工真的的这个病了,可能没到后期就离职了,那他提供这项就相当于白给员工花钱了。
先后逻辑
resulting in the fact 就很奇怪,不知道为什么当时做题时会选
A 通过一个媒介B 达成了C,那么应该是B发出的C动作,而不是 A,要是SVO(O是媒介B),ing(C)结构 的话,就会产生A发出C的歧义。
解决办法是SVO, 同位语同位O +V 动作
一是and 前后逻辑上(图形背景原则,是否有包含修饰关系等等)是否并列,二是比较对象要一致,三是there be只表示状态,不包含从属关系
发现好像只要有SV agreement这类题目,都可以想想图形背景原则,找到大背景下的主干
that也可以修饰人啊
像终极目的这类的不能代表转化,只能是过程(状态依旧不变),其实我理解的就是最终目的没那么容易到达,在这个题目里,从conduct surveys 到reduce number of guests (who are..)这个过程需要漫长的时间,可以视作是不变的,用 of reducing the number 更合适
AD选项都提到,it没有先行词,是因为for every dollar是介词短语吗?为什么it没有先行词?求大神解答一下。
代词it可以指代名词every dollar,但逻辑上不是每一个美元节省了7美元。因为在整个句子中找不到逻辑上合理的it的指代对象,所以说it没有先行词。