Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical makeup of the surface of Mars in recent eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was previously thought.
句子结构: Scientists have found…and have therefore concluded that…
(A) 从逻辑上看conclude这个动作应该和found这个动作构成因果关系的,平等的两个动作,而不应该构成主要和次要成分,因此 therefore concluding应该改为and therefore have concluded结构跟主句中的have found构成平等的成分; its指代不清,上一个分句中存在多个单数名词moving water, surface; as …than结构不符合习惯用法
(B) 错误同A; as much water or more as表达不正确
(C) 正确，Scientists have found…and have therefore concluded结构平行; planet’s crust消除了its的指代模糊; three times as much as符合习惯用法
(D) its指代不清; as much water, or more, than表达不正确; they重复,应该去掉
(E) 没有时间证据,concluded应该改为现在完成时,跟前一个并列成分使用同一个时态; three times more water as表达不正确
Comma + "concluding" is nonsense, because "...concluding" doesn't in any way describe the previous part. The "conclusion" is something that the scientists did later. • It's not a description of the previous part. • Because this conclusion demanded active deduction on the scientists' part, it's not a necessary/inevitable consequence of the previous part. (Immediate and inevitable consequences can also be expressed with comma + __ing: e.g., The car ran up onto the sidewalk and into the crowd, injuring five pedestrians.)
不赞同，一句简单的make no sense不足以说服，我觉得发现后才能conclud不是也是可以解释的通？
0 0 回复 2019-03-12 16:17:59
0 0 回复 2020-07-31 15:52:35
have done and have done 的并列
its 指代不清 因为有两个单数名词
0 0 回复 2018-05-08 09:31:34
b的正确用法是as much as or more than, 同时，这个was应该是可省可不省的，但是原文也没有more than的意思，所以综合还是选c
(E) 没有时间证据,concluded应该改为现在完成时,跟前一个并列成分使用同一个时态; three times more water as表达不正确 ——have是可以省略的。 however, only a bad writer would omit the second 'have' when there's a sizable distance between the two verbs (as there is here). with this much distance between the verbs, any decent writer will include the second 'have' to re-orient the reader. (try writing the sentence without the second 'have'. now, try to forget that you've already seen it, and read it from a new reader's point of view. you'll find that it is basically impossible to understand in one shot; you'll have to backpedal to figure out how the parallel structure works.) if the two verbs are close enough together, the omission is no longer 'bad writing'.