263901pici

这种地方用同位语纯纯脱了裤子fart

1 0 回复 2023-03-06 00:04:10

wordy要你吗

(A) Correct. 

(B) Incorrect. The use of the future tense “will turn” makes the sentence into a prediction rather than observation or a general rule as stated in the original sentence. For example, the below two sentences communicate different meanings:

If a small company faces financial troubles, it asks the government for help.
If a small company faces financial troubles, it will ask the government for help.
The first sentence presents a general rule or observation. On the other hand, the second sentence provides a prediction. Given the context, the original sentence presented as a general rule makes much more sense than this option presented as a prediction.

The second issue with this option is a very subtle one. The placement of “in the past” in this option leads to a significantly inferior meaning than the meaning presented in the original option (Please note that we are saying that this option is wrong because it presents an ‘inferior’ meaning, not because it presents a meaning different from the meaning presented in the original option. We do not believe that an option can be wrong just because it presents a meaning different from the one presented in the original sentence). To understand the issue here, let’s consider the below sentences.

In the past, Joe might have responded to your provocation in a violent way.
Joe might have in the past responded to your provocation in a violent way.
Joe might have responded to your provocation in a violent way.
We believe that statements 2 and 3 above mean the same while statement 1 has a different meaning. Statement 1 indicates that Joe currently doesn’t respond in a violent way. Statements 2 and 3 just talk about a possibility in the past and do not give any indication of the present situation. Do you see the difference?

If you don’t, don’t worry! It took us also a lot of time to see this difference. If you see the difference, you can appreciate that the phrase “in the past” is redundant in statement 2. 

Coming out of the analogy to our given option,  we can see that given the context of the sentence, we should communicate a meaning parallel to the meaning communicated in statement 1 above. Option B is parallel to statement 2 above and hence suffers from redundancy and has an inferior meaning.

(C) Incorrect. For the following reasons:

There is no antecedent for “it”. If “it” refers to the company, the sentence wouldn’t make sense.
The construction “liable to” is used in two ways:
To mean “legally required to”
To mean “likely to” in case of adverse consequence. For example, if you don’t care, you are liable to fall.
Neither of these two ways makes any sense in the given context.

(D) Incorrect. For the following reasons:

The second error of option C
The use of “the business” is not appropriate since no business has been mentioned before the use of this phrase; “a small company” is mentioned only later in the sentence.
(E) Incorrect. The use of “its” is incorrect because its antecedent needed to appear before the pronoun. The reason the antecedent of “its” needs to appear before the pronoun is that this pronoun is within a non-essential modifier. 

We believe that the reason many people don’t mark option A is that they become unsettled on seeing the repetition of “conflicts”. However, such repetition while framing Noun+Noun modifiers is pretty common. We’ll suggest that students brush up their knowledge of Noun+Noun modifiers (also known by a more technical name, Absolute Phrases).

0 0 回复 2022-07-21 18:56:21

wordy要你吗

(A) Correct. 

(B) Incorrect. The use of the future tense “will turn” makes the sentence into a prediction rather than observation or a general rule as stated in the original sentence. For example, the below two sentences communicate different meanings:

If a small company faces financial troubles, it asks the government for help.
If a small company faces financial troubles, it will ask the government for help.
The first sentence presents a general rule or observation. On the other hand, the second sentence provides a prediction. Given the context, the original sentence presented as a general rule makes much more sense than this option presented as a prediction.

The second issue with this option is a very subtle one. The placement of “in the past” in this option leads to a significantly inferior meaning than the meaning presented in the original option (Please note that we are saying that this option is wrong because it presents an ‘inferior’ meaning, not because it presents a meaning different from the meaning presented in the original option. We do not believe that an option can be wrong just because it presents a meaning different from the one presented in the original sentence). To understand the issue here, let’s consider the below sentences.

In the past, Joe might have responded to your provocation in a violent way.
Joe might have in the past responded to your provocation in a violent way.
Joe might have responded to your provocation in a violent way.
We believe that statements 2 and 3 above mean the same while statement 1 has a different meaning. Statement 1 indicates that Joe currently doesn’t respond in a violent way. Statements 2 and 3 just talk about a possibility in the past and do not give any indication of the present situation. Do you see the difference?

If you don’t, don’t worry! It took us also a lot of time to see this difference. If you see the difference, you can appreciate that the phrase “in the past” is redundant in statement 2. 

Coming out of the analogy to our given option,  we can see that given the context of the sentence, we should communicate a meaning parallel to the meaning communicated in statement 1 above. Option B is parallel to statement 2 above and hence suffers from redundancy and has an inferior meaning.

(C) Incorrect. For the following reasons:

There is no antecedent for “it”. If “it” refers to the company, the sentence wouldn’t make sense.
The construction “liable to” is used in two ways:
To mean “legally required to”
To mean “likely to” in case of adverse consequence. For example, if you don’t care, you are liable to fall.
Neither of these two ways makes any sense in the given context.

(D) Incorrect. For the following reasons:

The second error of option C
The use of “the business” is not appropriate since no business has been mentioned before the use of this phrase; “a small company” is mentioned only later in the sentence.
(E) Incorrect. The use of “its” is incorrect because its antecedent needed to appear before the pronoun. The reason the antecedent of “its” needs to appear before the pronoun is that this pronoun is within a non-essential modifier. 

We believe that the reason many people don’t mark option A is that they become unsettled on seeing the repetition of “conflicts”. However, such repetition while framing Noun+Noun modifiers is pretty common. We’ll suggest that students brush up their knowledge of Noun+Noun modifiers (also known by a more technical name, Absolute Phrases).

0 0 回复 2022-07-21 18:55:59

680461elv

D.The phrase the business is inappropriate given that no business has, by this point, been mentioned. The verb plague is too far removed from its subject conflicts, making the sentence awkward and difficult to read.
插入语的使用不能使原来联系紧密的部分被分隔得太远！！名词从未出现时就用代词指代，会非常奇怪

0 0 回复 2022-06-11 09:40:10

小良冠二郎

be liable to do 有做某事的倾向，后面通常是不好的事情，liable通常是指法律上或者义务上的那种倾向；
be likely to do 很可能做某事，用法更general一些

2 0 回复 2022-05-18 17:19:09

小良冠二郎

The verb plague is too far removed from its subject conflicts, making the sentence awkward and difficult to read. D和E选项，引导的从句头重脚轻，这是英文书面表达中相当忌讳的，这也是it is adj to do 被创造出来的原因。

3 0 回复 2022-05-18 17:17:38

suki最棒

"语义理解：be liable to表示有责任
be likely to 表示可能会
常识来看有责任在语义上是不如可能会的，排除CD。
BE its指代公司，如果公司都解散了就不会再有conflicts了只能是公司内的东西解散了-business
A是正确答案"

0 0 回复 2021-09-16 19:52:00

ALLAN FERRARA

D，主谓之间距离过远，同时business出现的时候还没有提到company， 很奇怪

3 0 回复 2020-11-13 20:43:03

鸡鸡沙西米

The sentence is in order as it stands; the best answer choice is option A. The other four answer choices have significant errors.

A. Correct. This choice is the best answer. It contains neither the errors in the other choices nor any other errors.
B. The placement of the adverbial phrase in the past creates redundancy because have already indicates a past tense. Placing the phrase in the past preceding might, as in choice A, indicates that the adverbial phrase correctly modifies the entire verb might have led. But likely will . . . is common in speech and somewhat informal; in a formal writing context, are likely to, as in choice A, is better.
C.This construction appears to make it the subject and which the object of the verb led, but the pronoun it has no logically plausible referent. Liable is sometimes used informally as a synonym of likely, but in formal written English, it is typically used only where the potential outcome is undesirable. In this sentence, likely is rhetorically a better choice.
D.The phrase the business is inappropriate given that no business has, by this point, been mentioned. The verb plague is too far removed from its subject conflicts, making the sentence awkward and difficult to read.
E.The possessive adjective its is meant to refer to a small company and could only do so if a company had already been mentioned. The verb plague is too far removed from its subject conflicts, making the sentence awkward and difficult to read.

2 0 回复 2020-10-28 12:20:18

zzzyyr

E注意its的指代不明

0 0 回复 2020-01-03 19:53:22

Ancelineee

同位语不一定紧跟先行词
which定从的内容不重要，that定从的内容很重要
be liable to 后面更多接不好的事 (近似于 be likely to, tend to)
E选项its无指代

2 0 回复 2019-12-30 11:12:45

lgw57340

d选项主语conflicts距离动词plague太远 不如同位语有优势

0 0 回复 2019-11-20 20:41:22

lgw57340

advanced系列考了好多重复性同位语啊感觉要重视起来了

4 0 回复 2019-11-20 20:19:00

281059mzq

be likely to & tend to. 在A.E中选，A中的conflicts和E的conflicts的区别在于:A的conflicts是限定的，将conflicts分为过去可能导致企业解散的冲突 过去不会导致企业解散的冲突。E的conflicts是非限定，功能解释说明。conflicts可以被该定语分成两类。因此选A.

0 0 回复 2019-11-13 21:46:19

374729so

which modifies the noun or noun+prep phrase immediately precedes the comma, 而C 中which 似乎指代company，错

0 0 回复 2019-10-21 10:04:33