Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.
a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault
题目分析:虽然当重要的数据丢失时,有些人指责了公司的网络经理Smith的疏忽,但是CEO通过公开表明 这一灾难不是Smith的错误 来缓和这个相当紧张的局势。
选项分析:
A选项:“with her public statement”是修饰defuse的状语。此时,句子的字面意思为“CEO缓和这个局势是伴随着一个声明的”。这是说不通的。因为,介宾短语中的介词是有自己的意思的,如on通常表示“在上面”,in通常表示“在里面”,with表示“伴着,随着”等等。但在这里,我们不能说“伴着一个声明”,而是要说 “通过声明…” 会更合理一些。
B选项:正确。by stating…表达了defuse的方式。“the debacle was not Smith’s fault”的字面意思为“这一灾难不是Smith的过错”。
C选项:state的内容和B相比发生了变化,Smith was not responsible for thedebacle的字面意思为“Smith不负责这一灾难”,即Smith不管这件事,但既然Smith为网络经理,合理的是说这件事不是他的错,而不是 他不管这件事。
D选项:with the statement的错误同A。
E选项:state的宾语变为了debacle,但逻辑上应该是“声明一件事(此灾难不是Smith的错)”,而不是“声明一个东西(灾难)”。
不过我很好奇怎么题干判断出来the situation is tense是一个必要修饰而非不必要修饰的,我觉得一般人根本判断不出来在这里这个修饰是不是必要的啊?
其实我认为非限制性定从和限制性定从在这里都可行,而无关这里的考点,更应该用句意或者是简洁性来排除C
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论