扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E2-SC-147
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolving as a kind of snorkel.
that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolving
that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolved
to suggest that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved
to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved
题目分析：
略。
选项分析：
A选项：and是连词，应该连接两个句子。本选项and身后缺少谓语动词。
另外，本选项整个划线部分是evidence的定语从句，这个定语从句应该改为不定式短语。这点考查了“不定式和从句的区别”。用之于本题，主句“澳大利亚胚胎学家发现证据”这件事会直接影响“证据能表明大象的进化史”这件事的发生与否（如果不发现证据，证据自然什么都无法证明）。
B选项：定语从句错误同(A)。
C选项：本选项也是evidence的定语，是一个现在分词短语。这点考查了“不定式和ing的区别”。同理于选项(A)，本题中evidence的定语必须是不定式形式。另外，had descended是过去完成时，表示某一个在过去的过去发生的事件。由于证据表明的是“客观真理”，不是某一个事件，所以应该过一般现在时而非过去完成时。
D选项：“大象来自于水生动物”是一个客观存在的事实，所以应该用一般现在时而不是过去完成时。（该错误同选项(C)）
E选项：Correct. 本选项在语法和逻辑上均是正确的。
来自RON
"evidence to suggest" and "evidence that suggests" are both acceptable in this sort of context. neither is a basis for elimination.
normally you would see "evidence that suggests..."
however, they've used "evidence to suggest..." here, in order to avoid writing evidence THAT suggests THAT xxxxx. not because it's wrong -- just because it's ugly.
RON对B选项的解释：（btw老师的解释很难在做题的时候就能判断这里一定要用to suggest其实）
1. 时态错误，不能说这个evidence从过去某一个时间点一直suggest到现在吧，这里表数一个事实更合理
2. descend 遗传 这个单词要注意主动被动有很大区别，这里要用被动语态更合理（大象被 aquatic animal遗传），如果用主动语态会变成大象遗传给 aquatic animal
3. 本题用that suggest that和to suggest that都没有问题，就是前面的写法比较丑而已
two other elements of that answer choice are problematic:
* "has suggested" --> this is the present perfect, which is used to look back on past events that have some sort of relation to the present situation. so, "has suggested" would signify that, at some point in the (probably recent) past, this evidence has suggested what is stated here -- but that it doesn't suggest those notions anymore.
* "descended" (without "is") --> if you mean to state an evolutionary relationship, you should use "is descended". "descended", used alone, signifies literal downward motion.
解释很清晰，我也认为老师在这里对v + to do这样的解释根本站不住脚，在别的题他就会说，found是约束力弱的动词，后面不可以接to do。。。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
一般客观真理用一般现在时
and +句子中间没有that时，是跟主句并列。跟从句并列用and that
in any case, all three of the following are legitimate:
evidence to suggest...
evidence that suggests...
evidence suggesting...
with（也可以没有）+noun+doing（分词）为独立主格，是简化的状语从句，需要与主句的动词近乎同时发生。
the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel 需要满足同时发生的条件
"evidence to suggest" and "evidence that suggests" are both acceptable in this sort of context. neither is a basis for elimination.
normally you would see "evidence that suggests..."
however, they've used "evidence to suggest..." here, in order to avoid writing evidence THAT suggests THAT xxxxx. not because it's wrong -- just because it's ugly.
时态排除也很重要
由于证据表明的是“客观真理”，不是某一个事件，所以应该过一般现在时而非过去完成时。
"evidence to suggest" and "evidence that suggests" are both acceptable in this sort of context.
evidence THAT suggests THAT xxxxx. not because it's wrong -- just because it's ugly.
Remember—Step One of ANY sentence correction problem is "Figure out the exact intended meaning."
The easiest way to gauge whether you're doing Step One well enough is to see what happens when you have to make decisions involving meaning.
If you have to figure out the meaning in retrospect--AFTER noticing a split--then that's a failure of Step One.
In other words, when you encounter a split that depends on context, you should already be aware of the EXACT intended meaning of the relevant words. Meaning is not the kind of thing that you should have to "go back and figure out".
• If you encounter a pronoun in any answer choice, you should already know what it's meant to stand for. You should not have to go back to figure that out.
• If you encounter a modifier, you should alredy know what it's meant to describe. Shouldn't have to go back.
• If you see the second half of a parallel structure (e.g., "... and xxxx"), you should already know what the first half is. Shouldn't have to go back.
This might seem demanding, but it really isn't--it's just normal reading. I.e., not strange "academic" reading, but rather the kind of reading you'd do for pleasure.
If you were reading a book and came to a sentence with a description (= a "modifier"), then you would absolutely know what it was describing! (And if you didn't, you wouldn't keep reading until you'd thought it through.)
Step 1 is actually just like reading a book or magazine. Not "academic" at all.
the "with" modifier is attached directly to the old animal (the one from which the elephant is descended). that's not the intended message of the sentence: the sentence is meant to describe the evolution of the elephant's trunk, not some earlier animal's trunk.
the -ING modifier is also troublesome, because -ING modifiers adopt the timeframe of the clause to which they are attached. the problem here is that we need to change the timeframe: "the elephant is descended..." is stated in the present, because it's a timeless fact about evolution, but "its trunk originally evolved..." needs to be in the past because it's an isolated historical event. the -ING modifier mistakenly suggests that both of these belong to the same timeframe.
in any case, all three of the following are legitimate:
evidence to suggest...
evidence that suggests...
evidence suggesting...
you will never have to choose between two choices that are fully correct; if you see 2 legitimate versions of some idiom, then something will be wrong elsewhere in one of the choices.
"has descended" means "has moved downward". this can be in either a literal sense (he has descended to sea level from a height of 8000 feet) or a metaphorical sense (i don't want to descend to the level of common street thugs), but it can't refer to ancestry.
if you mean to discuss ancestry, which is clearly the case here, then you must use "is descended".
"is descended from" is indeed a description of a condition in the present. it's the same thing as "is a descendant of".
e.g. my friend is a direct descendant of George Washington.
you wouldn't say "was", unless my friend is dead.
same thing with the elephant - if you write "the elephant was..." in this case, you are actually implying that the elephant is extinct.
"evidence to suggest" and "evidence that suggests" are both acceptable in this sort of context. neither is a basis for elimination. normally you would see "evidence that suggests..." however, they've used "evidence to suggest..." here, in order to avoid writing evidence THAT suggests THAT xxxxx. not because it's wrong -- just because it's ugly.
B：descend from意思是下降；be descended from才是“...是...的祖先”
来自RON
"evidence to suggest" and "evidence that suggests" are both acceptable in this sort of context. neither is a basis for elimination.
normally you would see "evidence that suggests..."
however, they've used "evidence to suggest..." here, in order to avoid writing evidence THAT suggests THAT xxxxx. not because it's wrong -- just because it's ugly.
看到had要警惕时态咯
be descended from... 至少应该是被动
前后两句应为并列关系，所以用and连接，且应该有that
且suggest的主语应该是人
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
主句“澳大利亚胚胎学家发现证据”这件事会直接影响“证据能表明大象的进化史”这件事的发生与否，所以用不定式
It is awkward and confusing to string together relative clauses: evidence that
suggests that the elephant. . .
with cannot be followed by an independence clause.
"is descended from" describes the present-day elephant;
"evolved" ---not how it is evolving today.
知识点：
1.不定式和从句的区别：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）。
2.名词和ing的区别：ing短语表达的是一种“过程”，通常在句中没有明确的时间终点，相反地，名词短语一般在句中具有明确的时间终点 。
3. and是连词，应该连接两个句子（即主谓成分要全）
4. 由于证据表明的是“客观真理”，不是某一个事件，所以应该过一般现在时而非过去完成时。