GWD8-Q11

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-15 16:06

呼呼 ....要用打的不能 copy... +o(

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.

There are two answers, A and C. Let's discuss which one should be correct....

由 **illuna** » 2004-09-15 16:23

我選A

C中的......but not for monkfish.......應該是改成 no 吧.....

不過A中的 a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing 的 their 有點可議.......

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-15 16:38

illuna \$m[1]:我選A

C中的......but not for monkfish.......應該是改成 no 吧..... ---> 題目是 not

不過A中的 a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing 的 their 有點可議.......

---> 對呀, 那個 their 應該指的是 monkfish 但是應該用 its *-)

.... 我選的是 C 但是答案 C 的 which 代誰呀, 有點不清楚, 應該代整件 monkfish 沒有限制捕捉這件事 ^o)

可以這樣用嗎 ? 這好像是我小時侯學的文法...which 可代整件事 *-)

由 **Grace** » 2004-09-15 19:02

我選A 耶!! their指的是cod, haddock, and monkifish 這三種魚.
答案A 語意比較logical, 答案C 的語意有點奇怪, 既然有legal limits 為什麼還會導致 depletion through overfishing呢?? :|

由 **Behemoth** » 2004-09-15 19:12

同意,我也選a

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-15 21:34

Grace \$m[1]:我選A 耶!! their指的是cod, haddock, and monkifish 這三種魚.
答案A 語意比較logical, 答案C 的語意有點奇怪, 既然有legal limits 為什麼還會導致 depletion through overfishing呢?? :|

ㄜ....這可能是句意翻譯的問題....它的意思不是說 cod and haddock立法限制捕捉的大小但monkfish沒有所以導致 monkfish因濫捕而滅絕 ^o)

由魚 » 2004-09-15 23:00

我選A , 答案 ?

偷偷分享一個秘密

我今天作某回GWD.........verbal 只對九題

對答案的時候很傷心

檢討的時候更驚訝 !

唉熊妹都衝衝衝我也要用力跑 8o|

言歸正傳

C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

應該不是一個正確的句子吧 *-)

姑且不論句意 , 粗體字的地方 , 語氣很奇怪前後找不到對應點 ! ?

由訪客 » 2004-09-15 23:45

QQcandy \$m[1]:呼呼 ....要用打的不能 copy...
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

[size=18]=>in my opinion,
1.for cod and haddock can not be subject(there are)
2.What's function of as???? some one can explain that in this sentence??

B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

=>should be 'it" = monkfish

C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

=>subject not parallelism

E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.[/size]

=>subject not parallelism and "they " should be it

correct....

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-15 23:53

mikelee \$m[1]:
QQcandy \$m[1]:呼呼 ....要用打的不能 copy...
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

[size=18]=>in my opinion,
1.for cod and haddock can not be subject(there are)
2.What's function of as???? some one can explain that in this sentence??

B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

=>should be 'it" = monkfish

C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

=>subject not parallelism

E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.[/size]

=>subject not parallelism and "they " should be it

correct....

(H) 哇 ~~~ Mike....我終於找到盟友了...不然我好孤單喔 ...嗚嗚嗚....

由 **illuna** » 2004-09-16 09:45

不必孤單.....老莫跟妳同在.... (AA)

再跟大家報告.....昨天我也拿這題去問老莫了.....

正確答案是C

原因如下：

A中as there are for cod and haddock用法錯誤.....

大家想想there的用法...舉例：

There are five books on the desk.

there子句後面一定要接地方副詞片語;) （老莫說的....）

保證（武斷字眼）沒有人用there只說有什麼東西而不說在哪裡...

因此A錯...

C的癥結點（對我而言啦...因為拿問題去問老莫他都會直接問你說「這題你的問題在哪」...所以我只好問我100%不懂的...）在於but not for monkfish可以還原成...

but there are not legal limits for monkfish

藍色部分表舊訊息....省略.....變成原題的樣子....

（所以說我自己一直把沒有legal limits想成there are no legal limits而沒想到there are not legal limits也是表示沒有的意思...唉唉...）

至於其他選項請參考Mike（狂暴SC男之解題美技）...

嘿嘿QQ妹.....想比發瘋先過我這關啦......哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈..... :D

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-16 10:46

:-$ 橘子哥哥....我可不可以再問一下小小小小小小小小的問題....

就是...就是....就是那個 which ㄚ...真的代整件事ㄛ, 整件 monkfish 沒有legal limits 的事ㄛ ??? 在 ETS 的考題裡, 真的有 which 代整件事的喔 ???

ps. Mike<----------狂暴SC男哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈讚 !!!! (Y)

由魚 » 2004-09-19 07:28

:-$ :-$ :-$

QQ ~

醬子C 的which不就是代monkfish |-)

由 **illuna** » 2004-09-19 08:54

魚 \$m[1]::-$ :-$ :-$
QQ ~
醬子C 的which不就是代monkfish

照這個樣子看....which應該不是代monkfish.....

因為如果是的話句意怪異....怎麼會monkfish自己造成他的滅亡??

我覺得從which前面若沒有逗號的話才比較像指代monkfish.....

which前面有逗號的話讓我的感覺會是指代前面沒有體型限制的這件事...

從句意來說這樣也比較合理....

由 **Behemoth** » 2004-09-19 11:08

各位各位...
有一點小小疑問...

c裡面There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing

我怎麼看還是怎麼覺得不一致ㄟ....
插入句but not for...這邊的for跟前面的of也不一致啊...

另外...這邊的which照句意來說應該是代legal limits
我的疑問是...可以不辭辛勞代這麼大老遠的名詞喔??

由魚 » 2004-09-19 11:38

我想翻案 ....

我根本就覺得這個which 有很大的問題

亨還好QQ姐姐很細心 (H)

我要選AAAAAAAAAA

1. 雖然看了cobills的例子, there be 後面果真都有副詞

但是 .... C 的which 有問題唄指代 monkfish 句意怪

如果不看 , but not for monkfish , 也怪

總之就是超級ambiguity

況且 which 是關係代名詞沒有代一整個句子的啦

看A, a circumstance that <---很完美啊 , 記得agk大哥貼的旋老師的那偏
a practice 嗎 ?

況且 , A 中 , 如果不看 , but not for monkfish , there be 的句子是有副詞

哀..........

GWD8-Q11

GWD8-Q11

Re: GWD8-Q11

Re: GWD8-Q11

誰在線上