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）。
C：Here the neither/nor works.
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).
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论