Over the next few years, increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River, which flows into the Apalachicola River, could alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay, which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size, less distinctive, and less in demand.
which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size
and it would rob the oysters there of their flavor, make them smaller
and rob the oysters there of their flavor, making them decrease in size
robbing the oysters there of their flavor and making them smaller
robbing the oysters there of their flavor, and making them decrease in size
题目分析:
本题描述的是:上升的需求改变了Apalachicola Bay的含盐度,所以夺去了牡蛎的味道并且让它们的变得更小了。
选项分析:
A选项:本选项中which would rob是定语从句,定语从句具有就近修饰原则,即,其修饰一个最近的名词—Apalachicola Bay,此时,rob的主语变为了Apalachicola Bay,不符合逻辑,其逻辑主语应该是increasing demands;and身后的不定式to make them decrease身前没有平行对象。另外,请注意,decrease in size和划线部分身后的less distinctive, and less in demand是平行的,根据功能平行原则,三者均是make的宾语的补足语,相当于三个句子的平行,即:
make them decrease in size, make them less distinctive, and make them less in demand.
B选项:本选项具有语法错误,it would rob和make them smaller之间缺少连词。
C选项:并列连词and使得“夺取牡蛎的味道(rob the oysters there of their flavor)”和“改变盐水成分(alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay)”之间具有对等并列的关系。但在逻辑上,显然改变盐水成分是起因,夺取牡蛎味道是结果,因此两者不是并列而是因果关系。
D选项:Correct. 本选项在逻辑和语法上均是正确的。
E选项:rob和make是alter的两个并列的后果,两个并列是成分用and连接时,and身前不能有逗号。例如,一般我们说:
(1) James and I went to New York.
我们不说:
(2) **James, and I went to New York.
当投资100刀和每年能挣2刀并列时,应该写为:
I invested $100, holding 3 share, and could earn $2 per year.
此时不能写为:
I invested $100, and I held 3 share and could earn $2 per year.
此题我根据平行原则先排除了ACE(“smaller” vs “decrease in size),不知这个思路是否有问题?
之后,排除B的理由是“it”只能指代名词“increasing demand”,不能指代“alter the saline content”,而逻辑上“alter the saline content”才是“rob flavor”的直接原因,不知这个思路是否有问题呢?谢谢
第一个,不正确,更新在了选项A的解析中。
第二个,也不正确的。就算是正确答案,rob的主语也是其所修饰的句子的主语,即,increasing demands。用it指代它,还是用伴随,都是可以的。
恩,谢谢。功能平行,不需要语法平行,前后是一致的成分即可。确实没想到E选项的问题出在逗号上。
一定要注意伴随状语的特点啊少年
用it为什么可以呢?demands不是一个复数吗
啊,对~是复数,应该用they,写错了,抱歉。
犀利~
请问这里逻辑上不就是盐分浓度的改变导致了牡蛎怎么怎么样吗?我觉得如果说increasing demand导致了牡蛎怎样肯定不太好啊。
就像我们在CR里,结论是a导致c,削弱这个逻辑则可以是a导致b,b导致c。所以我觉得这里用increasing demand很明显是有瑕疵的,然后就排除了de。最后我选了b,因为我认为it可以指代saline content,虽然应该用名词change of saline content来说make them smaller更好, 但是答案里没有,所以我就退而求其次选了b.请问我的想法哪里出了问题?
我跟你一样,认为逻辑上increasing demand不应该是rob的主语,退而求其次选择了B
难道不是increasing demands充当主语吗,所以用it?
我也觉得是it啊😅
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
对啦
而且划线后面都是比较级,decrease in size 不平行