The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.
passing the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell
the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent to sell
the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling
[句意理解!!]
错选e
这句话的意思是xxx的增值导致了法令的通过,而非xxx的增值导致了法令,故排除e
with the intent of doing sth
D,the sole intent of selling domains laters,selling在介宾短语里作名词,没有逻辑主语,谁买域名都可以,这些人注册域名就是为了卖掉它,不强调是注册的人去卖,(比如公司委托中介机构注册域名,域名并不归属于中介机构,也不是它来卖)ok
intent of doing
intent to do
intent on doing/sth
都对
同一个句子中一个代词出现两次时,他们指代的必须是同一个东西。
Wrong: The results of the company's cost- cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.
Its指代the company,it指代the company,company不会fall,是profits fall,句子逻辑错误
1、passage文章,还有通过的意思,pass的名词
B,against those who register domain names with the sole intent that they will sell them later,
they sell them,到底是谁sell谁?指代不清,有歧义
法案没有时间
主要考点:平行 VS 副词修饰;纯名词VS Ving;修饰歧义
语义:域名抢注会导致….,造成…
语法:
D选项:原句强调的是颁布法案后带来的伴随结果,and连接表示两件独立事件,不符合句意。排除;
E选项:and allowing没有平行对象。排除
A选项:对比BE,强调名词用passing,没有passage纯名词好。排除
C选项:in 1999放置位置在句中,有歧义。排除
答案是C啊 不是A啊
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
原来in 1999有个修饰的歧义:靠后修饰的是法案“1999年的法案”,靠前修饰法案的通过这个动作“1999年通过这个法案”
更多的是考虑which的就近修饰,C比B减少了which修饰的歧义。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
A.passing 找不到主语,没有主语的动词表达应改为被动或名词形式
B.in 1999修饰语位置不对,主要用于modify passage,而非act。
→prep笔记:其次,of doing 用于修饰名词,to do 修饰动词,with the intent that they will sell复杂
(这部分我保留意见)
D、E:句意扭曲,proliferation led to passage not the ACT!→meaning
这题主要是考逻辑语义 1)xxx导致了法案的通过 而不是法案 因此排除D E 2)法案which allows....而不是法案的通过allowing... 因此排除A 3)B选项出现代词they 可能指代cybersquatters(people)也可能指代companies 并且 in 1999的位置虽不能做绝对正确的判断 但放前面优于放在法案和which allows之间p.s passage “(法案的)通过”
intent of doing
intend that
intend to do/doing
intend of doing...
B
* "the intent that they will..." is unidiomatic. intent后面加从句unidiomatic
* the "which" erroneously refers to "1999".
a, passing这里是名词还是动名词??如果是作名词,前面需要加上the passing,而且passing有自己的名词形式,passage;allowing作伴随状语,逻辑主语也不可能是people,只能是法案; in 1999紧跟act,造成一种1999年的法案的感觉
b, in 1999修饰歧义同a, they的指代对象不清,前面的复数名词太多
c, 句子主干是proliferation led to the act, and it allows...这里it语法上指代proliferation,但是实际指代act
e, passed和allowing的逻辑主语是谁?如果是伴随状语,逻辑主语是proliferation,如果是修饰act,逻辑主语就是act,所以两个非谓语动词用逗号隔开,没有紧跟修饰对象,会有歧义
A的in 1999会不会修饰不清楚?网上有人说可能修饰“在1999年通过”或“1999年的法案通过”
因为通过了法案,这个动作已经完成,应该采用名词化程度更高的passage会更好
(A) 从逻辑意思上看The proliferation…导致的结果是反域名强占保护法案的通过,而不是通过的过程,因此passing应该改为 passage,强调结果.in 1999既可能修饰Act也可能修饰passing,导致修饰不清;分词结构allowing…修饰有歧义。
(B) in 1999位置不对,导致修饰不清;with the sole intent that they will sell表达复杂,笨拙.
(C) 正确, lead to the passage强调了结果;which非限定定语从句修饰Act,意思表达清楚;时间状语in 1999紧靠修饰对象the passage,修饰无歧意;用of selling修饰名词intent表达正确
Intent 到底后面是of还是to?????
intent of
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
passing 和 passage, 这里是说proliferation导致了一个法案的通过,更应该侧重结果,而非过程,所以passage更好。
the proliferation 应该是导致了一个法案的通过,而不是导致了一个法案