扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E2-SC-29
Unlike many United States cities, where a river is no longer the focal point of urban life, the river in San Antonio winds through the middle of the business district, and the River Walk, or Paseo del Rio, is the city's most popular attraction.
Unlike many United States cities, where a river is no longer the focal point of urban life, the river in San Antonio
Unlike the river in many cities in the United States, which is no longer the focal point of urban life, in San Antonio the river
Today the river in many cities in the United States is no longer the focal point of urban life, unlike San Antonio, where it
In few United States cities today, a river is the focal point of urban life, but the river in San Antonio
No longer do many cities in the United States have a river as the focal point of urban life, but in San Antonio the river
感谢！
毕老师的解释太牵强，那你怎么解释这句话？the River Walk, or Paseo del Rio, is the city's most popular attraction. 这不也是固有属性？？登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
"[modifier] + a river is the focal point of urban life, BUT the river in San Antonio winds through the middle of the business district and xxxx."
there's no contrast here at all! we have [modifier] + "things are built around rivers" + BUT + "even more things are built around rivers".
you can see that this is nonsense even if you have no idea what the sentence SHOULD say.
choice a:
faulty comparison:
'unlike many u.s. cities, ... the river in san antonio...' --> can't compare cities to a river
choice b:
comparison isn't so good:
the second part should start directly with 'the river' (instead of 'in san antonio the river...'), so that the comparison is more clear.
much more importantly, poor use of the relative pronoun 'which':
'...cities in the united states, which is no longer the focal point...'
relative pronouns like which, by default, refer to the noun that's closest to the left, which in this case is the united states. therefore, this relative pronoun is used in a way that's either ambiguous (if you allow it to potentially refer to other nouns) or just plain wrong (if you follow the rule strictly).
choice c:
faulty comparison again
'the river...' is being compared to san antonio.
choice d:
drastic change in meaning
this sentence has completely gotten rid of any reference to the concept of 'no longer'. while all the other sentences say that things have changed, this sentence presents the situation as if it's always been that way.
2.语义推理。No longer的句意在D中没有了。
E选项是否定句倒装表示强调。
... is grammatically equivalent to ...
Many cities in United States no longer have a river as the focal point of urban life
also
Only yesterday were we told about the layoffs
... is equivalent to ...
We were told about the layoffs only yesterday
the primary difference between the examples in each pair is rhetorical. in particular, the first one in each pair -- the one that places the adverb (only yesterday, no longer) in front -- would be written that way in order to emphasize the meaning of that adverb. from the standpoint of grammar, there is essentially no difference.
choice a:
faulty comparison:
'unlike many u.s. cities, ... the river in san antonio...' --> can't compare cities to a river
choice b:
comparison isn't so good:
the second part should start directly with 'the river' (instead of 'in san antonio the river...'), so that the comparison is more clear.
much more importantly, poor use of the relative pronoun 'which':
'...cities in the united states, which is no longer the focal point...'
relative pronouns like which, by default, refer to the noun that's closest to the left, which in this case is the united states. therefore, this relative pronoun is used in a way that's either ambiguous (if you allow it to potentially refer to other nouns) or just plain wrong (if you follow the rule strictly).
choice c:
faulty comparison again
'the river...' is being compared to san antonio.
choice d:
drastic change in meaning
this sentence has completely gotten rid of any reference to the concept of 'no longer'. while all the other sentences say that things have changed, this sentence presents the situation as if it's always been that way.
No animal has a green tongue. this is a negative statement. because it is fundamentally a statement about something that DOES NOT exist, the MAIN SENTENCE must contain a negative construction.
A: 前后对比不是城市和河流；
B: which就近修饰了城市，这里应该修饰river
C：与A错误一样
D: 用but 替代no longer, but感觉一直都是如此，但是no longer可以提现一个转变，句意已经变了
E: 倒装还原 Many cities in the United States no longer have a river as the focal point of urban life， But的对比不要求像unlike那么对称？
D：几乎没有美国城市把河流作为生活重点，但是SA的河流是生活重点。
E：很多城市不再把河流当做重点，但是SA的河流仍然是生活重点。
比较的点应该是这个 “no longer”，大多城市不再是……而SA仍然是……
D，抛弃了no longer这个词，转用but来表示一个如何，另一个非如何。这种改变导致原句一个如何，另一个不再如何里的不再所包含的之前如此，后来不是的意思没有了，表意效果不好。
E，放弃了unlike，转用but来表示两件不同的事，并保留了no longer，无论语法还是语意逻辑都是ok的。
D没有语法错误，而是句意错误
E还原倒装后的真实句子：in the United States many cities no longer have a river as... but in San Antonio
1、the river in San Antonio VS in San Antonio the river winds
2、in few cities，river……，but river in another city…… VS Many cities no longer have rivers ……，but in another city the river……
因为是转折逻辑，不要求两个句子的结构严格平行；
no longer把“很多城市之前也有河……，现在没了”表达出来了，语意更清晰。
unlike的介词宾语需要和主句的主语做对比，排除choice a,b
choice c, it指代river in many cities
choice D: in few cities作状语修饰的是主句的系动词is; 而根据身后未划线的river in SA可知，城市是作为定语修饰river的。
去掉修饰看核心成分：a river is the focal point of urban life, but the river in San Antonio winds through the middle of the business district. 简化以后发现but前后是没法形成转折关系的