老师这题有点疑问：
1.如果根据句意排除，investigate changes而不是effects我觉得比较模糊，尤其是大多数选项都是investigate changes的情况下，就很容易考虑成去调查的内容是改变，effects是要得出的结论。
2.as to是不是只能解释前面的名词，比如说decisions as to whether...
3.C中错的不应该是the effects吗？what the effects先行词提前。正常是for investigating that changes in working conditions would cause are what effects on...这里的错误不是在于多了一个are吗？
4.E中为啥说experiments是动作发出者， XX research is an experiment to investiate表目的不行吗？这里难度必须要知道谁在investigate吗？而且正常语序是 changes in working conditions would have what effects on worker's performance为什么说缺少谓语了呢？
5.D中，experiments investigated sth是不对的吗？那如果正确地说实验调查了什么要怎么表达呢？

(b) is the best choice here.

(a) is vague because it's overly indirect: the meaning of "investigate changes ... as to their effects" is unclear. what's more, it's probably considered unidiomatic as well, at least in this sort of context.

(b) = correct
the participle "investigating" follows "experiments" immediately. no filler words are necessary; this is good concision.
the wording is clear; there are no awkward double possessives, etc., as in some of the other choices.
"would" is used properly here, as a past-tense form of "will". (i.e., if this sentence were translated into the present tense, it would read "...that changes ... will have")

(c) is ridiculously wordy; there's no way you should give this choice any serious consideration. if you don't realize pretty quickly that this choice is wrong, you should go back and read through a bunch of correct OG answers, trying to internalize the sights and sounds (the "vibe") of the correct answers.

(d) "changes in working conditions' effects" is at best awkward and vague, and at worst ambiguous: the intended meaning is the effects of the changes, but this sentence seems to indicated the effects of the conditions themselves. in other words, a literal reading of this sentence seems to indicate that the conditions themselves haven't changed - only their effects have. that's not the intended meaning of the original.

(e) "what the effects" is ungrammatical.
also, in constructions of this sort, "what" is generally redundant / unnecessary; it's better merely to say "to investigate X" rather than to say "to investigate what X is" (or other such wordy construction).

(e) "what the effects" is ungrammatical.
also, in constructions of this sort, "what" is generally redundant / unnecessary; it's better merely to say "to investigate X" rather than to say "to investigate what X is" (or other such wordy construction).

A. 这里写investigate changes。看到B应该就会有感觉，改变不需要调查，只需要观察就可以了。只有effect 才需要调查。
B. 正确。investigating 做后置定语修饰 experiment
C. 介词短语做名词的定语，和ing做定语不一样。介词短语的话没有主词，没有动做的发出者。for investigate，发出这个动作的对象就不是 实验了，错误。
D. experiment 只能在从句中做主语，做investigate的动作发出者，不行，错误 又是调差改变，错误同A
E. what 指代something that。

changes in working conditions would have on workers' performance 在effect后面做定语，因为effect 在从句中做宾语，所以that可以省略。

(b) is the best choice here.

(a) is vague because it's overly indirect: the meaning of "investigate changes ... as to their effects" is unclear. what's more, it's probably considered unidiomatic as well, at least in this sort of context.

(b) = correct
the participle "investigating" follows "experiments" immediately. no filler words are necessary; this is good concision.
the wording is clear; there are no awkward double possessives, etc., as in some of the other choices.
"would" is used properly here, as a past-tense form of "will". (i.e., if this sentence were translated into the present tense, it would read "...that changes ... will have")

(c) is ridiculously wordy; there's no way you should give this choice any serious consideration. if you don't realize pretty quickly that this choice is wrong, you should go back and read through a bunch of correct OG answers, trying to internalize the sights and sounds (the "vibe") of the correct answers.

(d) "changes in working conditions' effects" is at best awkward and vague, and at worst ambiguous: the intended meaning is the effects of the changes, but this sentence seems to indicated the effects of the conditions themselves. in other words, a literal reading of this sentence seems to indicate that the conditions themselves haven't changed - only their effects have. that's not the intended meaning of the original.

(e) "what the effects" is ungrammatical.
also, in constructions of this sort, "what" is generally redundant / unnecessary; it's better merely to say "to investigate X" rather than to say "to investigate what X is" (or other such wordy construction).

调查的是一个影响，改变是不用调查的，而是观察，排除AD
E，effects后面可看作定语从句，effects做宾语，省略that，但这么写就缺少谓语了
C，for investigating缺少逻辑主语，排除

C的语序：for investigating what the effects (that changes in working conditions would cause) on workers' performance are.
E选项里边：what the effects (changes in working conditions would have) on workers' performance
所以说C的语序怪异，D选项从句少了谓语。
A和D都是调查的changes（工作环境的变化），但是句子的意思是要调查这个工作环境的变化对员工绩效带来的影响(effect)

what自己是名词，身后是定语从句。changes in working conditions would have on workers' performance又是effect的定语从句，所以what身后的定语从句就少了谓语动词。

又遇到这题，C后面的结构怎么理解啊？
what the effects on workers' performance are that changes in working conditions would cause，这里的what在are后面作表语的话，后面的that句子是什么成分呢？ that的先行词是谁呢？ 跳跃修饰the effects吗？ 跳的有点远啊……

只看懂了B 😓

BE区分，定语与定语从句修饰“实验”
A: 实验不会主动调查，错
B: doing 做定语，对
C: for doing 不正确，且句意奇怪
D: 句意错误
E: what多余，语言习惯是to investigate X 而不是 to investigate what X is。
to investigate the effect而不是 to investigate what the effect is
to investigate whether global warming will occur and what impact it will have, 这里因为要与whether平行，所以用what impacts最佳

C，for doing不表示目的；that离先行词effects隔了effect的定语和谓语动词are，错误；
E，what多余，语言习惯是to investigate X 而不是 to investigate what X is。
to investigate the effect而不是 to investigate what the effect is
to investigate whether global warming will occur and what impact it will have, 这里因为要与whether平行，所以用what impacts最佳

to investigate what the effects （changes in working conditions would have ）on workers\' performance
断句+化简： to investigate what the effects on worker\'s performance
可不就是没有谓语嘛
what + the effects on 确实没谓语

to investigate what the effects THAT changes in working conditions would have on workers' performance

"what the effects" is ungrammatical.
also, in constructions of this sort, "what" is generally redundant / unnecessary; it's better merely to say "to investigate X" rather than to say "to investigate what X is" (or other such wordy construction).

修饰名词，表特征，不管是用定语从句还是分词作定语，只要是定语的成分，意思都是一样的

what=something that

E what是名词，不能引导定语从句
如果what effect作investigate的宾语，后面的句子作定语从句修饰what effect，则先行词没有在定语从句中充当成分，
应该说 to investigate what the effects THAT changes in working conditions would have on workers' performance
注意这个that在定语中充当了成分，不像宾语从句的that，不可以省略

不定式表示的是一种“主观性”，即，表达一种状态的转换（start-stop）。
从句表示的是一种“客观性”，即，表达一种状态的稳定（process）。

因此，对于不定式和从句的区别，我们可以近乎照搬所有不定式和ing的区别的判断标准。

(d) "changes in working conditions' effects" is at best awkward and vague, and at worst ambiguous: the intended meaning is the effects of the changes, but this sentence seems to indicated the effects of the conditions themselves. in other words, a literal reading of this sentence seems to indicate that the conditions themselves haven't changed - only their effects have. that's not the intended meaning of the original.