扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATAdvanced-SC-7
A study of children of divorced parents found that ten years after the parents’ divorce, children who had been under six years of age at the time of the settlement were not preoccupied, nor even very curious, about the reasons that led to their parents’ divorces.
not preoccupied, nor even very curious, about the reasons that led to their parents’ divorces
not preoccupied with, or even very curious about, the reasons for their parents’ divorce
neither preoccupied, nor even very curious, with the reasons that led to their parents divorce
neither preoccupied with the reasons that led to their parents’ divorces or even very curious about them
neither preoccupied with the reasons that their parents divorced nor even very curious about it
还没有题目讲解（毕出老师会陆续发布对官方考题的解读，请保持关注）。
not...or...
be curious about 好奇
neither... nor...
not...or...
2. reasons for +结果； for reasons of +原因
3. it 指代不了复数
In addition, the plural is off here: “parents’ divorces.” "Divorces" sounds like the parents had multiple divorces. While it might be the case that their parents had multiple divorces, it is unlikely, especially since the statement discusses a single divorce earlier on in the sentence: “ten years after the parents' divorce.”
(D) is out.
E：In general, any time you find yourself wondering whether a certain construction is allowed, you don't want to use it as a decision point. It's very easy to get lost deliberating over rules that don't actually exist.
In this case, "reasons that their parents divorced," isn't the world's most elegant phrase, but I'm not sure that it's WRONG, exactly. There's no concrete grammatical error. The notion isn't illogical. So I'm not getting rid of an answer choice on this basis alone. (Notice that there's no need for a preposition here. And while there are certainly hard-core grammar teachers who will insist that you can't end a sentence with a preposition, there's no consensus on this, so if I encountered this construction, I'd avoid using it as a reason to kill an answer choice.)
So instead, let's search for a more concrete error in (E). Take another look:
"...neither preoccupied with the reasons that their parents divorced nor even very curious about it"
What does "it" refer to here? The only logical referent is "the reasons," but "it" has to refer to a singular noun, so this is a definitive error. Now I'm perfectly happy giving (E) the boot.
The takeaway: Anytime you're unsure about a rule, accept the possibility that there might be no rule, and look for either concrete grammatical errors or problems with logic and meaning.
Let’s now break up the sentence as we did in (A) and (B):
1) “preoccupied WITH the reasons.” - This works.
2) “curious WITH the reasons.” - Nope, we don’t have the right idiom here. The idiom is “curious ABOUT.”
In addition, there seems to be an issue with commas in this option:
The commas after "preoccupied" and after "curious" seem to act as parentheses--they are there to indicate extra, nonessential information.
But watch what happens if we get rid of the comma-separated part in (C): "children were neither preoccupied with the reasons that led to their parents divorce." This sentence now doesn't make sense on it's own.
In (B), however, if we get rid of the comma-separated part, we have: "...children were not preoccupied with the reasons...", which is totally fine. This is another vote in favor of (B) over (C).
Also (and this might just be a typo), there should be an apostrophe after parents to indicate possession: “parents’ divorce.”
(B) is still the best option, so let's get rid of (C).
Next, we have two descriptors for the children, so let’s see if the sentence works for each one individually:
1) children {...} were not preoccupied ABOUT the reasons {...}
2) [children] {...} were not even very curious ABOUT the reasons {...}
You can be curious ABOUT something, so the second bit works here. But you can only be preoccupied WITH something, not preoccupied ABOUT something. So we have another idiomatic issue and our second strike against (A).
The final issue (which does not involve idioms) is that the second part of the sentence is a bit redundant—we don’t need to say that they were reasons "that led to" their divorce because that’s what reasons do... something like “reasons for their divorce” would suffice. That gives us our third strike against (A).
If you aren't sure about the idioms, you'll have a tough time eliminating (A) right away. But with three votes against it, (A) isn't looking good.
be curious about
be curious about
E在于it（单数）
be curious about 好奇
neither... nor...
not...or...
be curious about 好奇
AC选项preoccupied with 和curious about结构不完整，不平行
E选项it无指代