The globalization of financial-services companies has been a boon to money launderers, because of allowing money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred to a branch in a more regulated one.
of allowing money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred
of allowing the transfer of money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction
it allows that money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction is transferred
it allows the transfer of money having been placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction
it allows money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred
题目分析:
本题对介词身后只能用名词短语的概念考查较为详细。
选项分析:
A选项:介词because of身后只能加名词,即,allowing money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred to a branch in a more regulated one是动名词短语。动名词几乎继承了名词的所有性质,如果在语法上想给动名词加主语,只能用所有格的形式,例如:
people’s reduction of driving
people’s reducing driving
用之于本选项,allowing就没有句法上的主语,所以我们无从得知是谁在发出allow这个动作。本题中必须是“全球化”发出allow这个动作,因此本选项的allow缺少主语。
B选项:allow缺少主语错误同选项(A);allow的宾语为名词短语the transfer of money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction。也就是说,被允许的是transfer(交易)这个行为。从常理上,一件事情不能是被允许的对象,只能是允许某人去做某事。
C选项:allow的宾语是宾语从句,其核心词依然是其中的动作,即,transfer,该错误原理同选项(B)。
D选项:本选项错误同选项(B)。
E选项:Correct. 本选项在语法和逻辑上均是正确的。
没有allow that 这种用法 这不是考idiom吗
用约束力解释很牵强 d allow the transfer , e allow the money. 不是后面的宾语都不一样吗 我对约束力感觉完全不理解... 强弱判断很主观啊 哪里显然了?
我更新了一下解释。确实从idiom上没有allow that这种说法,但我们必须要确认为什么没有allow that,而不是单纯的记忆。如果只是记忆的话,那cause make believe know requite等为什么有的可以加that,有的不行?都是单纯的记忆的话,非常难以掌握。
allow that不对,是因为allow什么添加了宾语从句,而宾语从句的核心词是其中的谓语动词,所以意思是允许“一件事”。但常理上来说,只能允许某人去做某事,即,被允许的对象(宾语)应该是人,而不是一件事,我们不能允许或要求一件事情怎么怎么样。(其实这也是约束力的本质含义,只不过,确实有些时候会引起大家看错,所以编辑掉了)
感谢
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论