Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.
of violating state laws for allowing
of their violating state laws to allow
that it violates state laws that allowed
that it violated state laws allowing
that state laws were being violated allowing
毕老师,C和D的对错,判断的依据是什么呢?我选择了C
法律类的名词后面加定语一般用doing形式一般不用定语从句
on the ground that ... 以…为理由,以…为借口
on the grounds that prep.由于,以...为理由
on the allegation that ... 理由是…,根据…理由
on the assumption that adv.假设
on the assumption that ... 以为…,假定…
AB很好排除,这种解释性的一般都用that从句。
E,错到离谱,摘自ron
choice (e) is TOTALLY wrong. if you can't kill choice (e) quickly, you should read through a large number of correct answers to SC questions in the official guides, just for the purpose of internalizing the writing style of the correct answers.
i can't overestimate the importance of becoming comfortable with the writing style of the gmat. in the same way you can classify language as 'shakespearean' or 'faulkner-esque' at a glance, you can also classify language as to whether you might see it on the gmat. once you achieve a certain degree of this familiarity, choice (e) and its ilk will begin to look ridiculous.
the formal reasons why choice (e) is wrong: 1, it uses the passive voice for no good reason whatsoever, and, 2, more importantly, it says only that state laws were being violated; it doesn't at all indicate the crucial fact that the ban violated the state laws. that's baaaaaadd bad bad.
剩下CD,法律的属性一般都用现在分词,避免了「过去/未来」之类的允许问题。
法律类的名词后面加定语一般用doing形式一般不用定语从句
A 动名词没有主语 D it指the ban
表示属性一般都用分词而非定语从句,描述内容则用同位语从句。
that 引导同位语,AB错
E的主语不对,应该是Ban而不是state laws
CD区分:
C中,违反是现在时,允许是过去式。如果“过去”允许而“现在”不允许,那么就不需要“现在”违反了,所以错误,应该两个都是现在时。
D用doing解决了这个问题
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/nine-months-after-the-county-gprep-sc-t4953.html
表示法律的属性一般都用分词而非定语从句,描述法律的内容则用同位语从句。
实意成分的缺失,所以选择D呀
choice (c) is wrong because the tenses don't make sense. 'violates' is in the present tense, but 'allowed' is in the past tense. either one of these tenses could potentially make sense individually, but the combination is absurd: you can't violate (present tense) a law that used to allow something (past tense). if you're going to violate the law in the present tense, then whatever part of the law was violated had better carry over into the present tense.
a judge overturned the ban on the ground that...主句过去时,从句时态一致,直接就可以选D,on the ground of 接 ing 可能主语不明确
on the ground that ... 以…为理由,以…为借口
on the grounds that prep.由于,以...为理由
on the allegation that ... 理由是…,根据…理由
on the assumption that adv.假设
on the assumption that ... 以为…,假定…
overturned the ban on the ground that it violated state laws allowing 这里that引导同位语从句,解释ban,这一禁令违反州法律。allowing修饰laws作定语,意思是允许水上船只通行的法律。
主要还是语义整个通了就都通了。
that不是引导ground的从句么??基于它违反了州法律 所以说才overturn
你应该是对的,that引导同位语从句解释ground
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
自己语义没有读清楚
ing用法:做后置定语修饰laws