[問題]GWD9-Q27

[simommmm]

Q25:

Scientists have identified an asteroid, 200 BF19, that is about alf a mile and, if it strikes Earth, it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but probably not cause planetwide destruction.

A. and, if it strikes Earth, it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but

B. and, if it would strike Earth, part of the planet could experience a trmendous amount of damage but it would

C and that, if it were to strike Earth, could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would

D. and that, if Earth is strike by it, can do part of the planet tremendous damage, but it would

E. and that, if it strikes Earth, it could experience a tremendous amount of damage but

KEY: C

不太暸該如何解這一題 因此看到A還不錯 就選了
請問這題的解法應該是??

[agk99]

這是identified that .....and that的並列句型
所以AB直接刪，選CDE

再根據句意，這顆asteroid肯定還沒打到地球，那麼就是假設句型，所以選C

[zuckzhc]

這是identified that .....and that的並列句型
所以AB直接刪，選CDE

再根據句意，這顆asteroid肯定還沒打到地球，那麼就是假設句型，所以選C

請問一下 identified that... and that...兩個that 應該是不是應該引導名詞子句呢?不過這裡的第一個that 顯然是當關係代名詞用啊...

我覺得A的答案比較好

原句可還原成
Scientists have identified an asteroid, 200 BF19, that is about half a mile and it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but probably not cause planetwide destruction, if it strikes Earth.

and 變成對等連接詞, 在假設語氣的用法上也沒有錯誤(無法從句中判斷說隕石撞擊地球的可能性為何)

這題好像沒啥人討論...

[cocaine]

這提跟agk大大說明依樣..

identified that... and that

那些that = BF 19,
AE, it 多餘
B, if 子句時態錯誤
D, if子句時態錯誤

[gogotu]

這題有個巧勁：
通常句子不會寫....N that is但 這個部份沒劃線，表示一定對。也就是說，an asteroid, 200 BF19, that is about alf a mile 這樣寫一定有特別的意義，就是為了和後面的that.....平行。
類似這種思路，好像有不少題。

[hungji]

1.觀察五答案
2.差異 (1)and it can與and part of與and that could與and that can與and it could -- 考平衡 (2)but與but it would與but would與but it would
3.回原題, identified ...that is ...and that could(can), 刪 A, B
4.刪 A, D, E 因 it 指誰?
5.選 C, DO DAMAGE TO 且 could...but...would

[Pufa]

小意見：
可能有同學誤解了前輩們的解說。
事實上並沒有identify..that的用法，這裡純粹是考asteroid that.. and that...平衡。
A錯的原因我想是因為and前面沒有逗點。

[小晃兄]

我也支持A
除了and that 的問題外，我覺得C的假設語氣有問題，but would probably ~~
would 已經是假設語氣，後面不該再加表假設的probably

我認為and平衡對等句前要加逗點只是通則，有時候可以違反(雖然不知時機 )

ex：OG207
revenues are low and marketing expenses are high
這裡對等句用and平衡就沒加逗點

個人意見，請多多指教

[Pufa]

眾說紛紜，
這題還要再討論！

[puthing]

小弟拋磚一下

(A) 用can來表推測不如ocould好

(B) if 裡面的假設法怪

我本來也覺得 a tremendous amount of 有重複句意之嫌

不過剛剛查到有這樣的例句

They cost They cost a tremendous amount of money.

(C) that都是代2000BF19,且平衡that ......and that

(還有一個could......but would看起來也不錯)


(D) if 子句裡面用法怪, can也不好 ,句尾的it也指代不清

(E) if 子句裡面用法怪, it更不知道代誰



小弟有兩問題:

1.but 可以不加comma直接這樣用嗎? 一般好像都是 " 句1,but 句2"

2.if it were to 是表示跟未來事實相反的假設

(EX.如果太陽打西邊升起,puthing就可以考700分)

但是這裡是科學家推測有可能發生的事情

為什麼還用這were to 的形式呢?


請大家指教一下

謝謝!!!

[haijung]

我也有和樓上同學一樣的問題... (C)是代表和未來事實相反的假設, 這邊既然是科學家的推論, 那代表未來有可能發生, 那為什麼會用(C)的句型? 雖然不可否認的, (C)是所有答案中文法來說最正確的...

[puthing]

再頂一下這題

除了我之前提的兩點

would probably會不會是一種加強語氣的用法呢?

表一種很不確定的推測

[ohhaha]

[quote="puthing"]小弟拋磚一下

(A) 用can來表推測不如ocould好

(B) if 裡面的假設法怪

我本來也覺得 a tremendous amount of 有重複句意之嫌

不過剛剛查到有這樣的例句

They cost They cost a tremendous amount of money.

(C) that都是代2000BF19,且平衡that ......and that

(還有一個could......but would看起來也不錯)


(D) if 子句裡面用法怪, can也不好 ,句尾的it也指代不清

(E) if 子句裡面用法怪, it更不知道代誰



小弟有兩問題:

1.but 可以不加comma直接這樣用嗎? 一般好像都是 " 句1,but 句2"

2.if it were to 是表示跟未來事實相反的假設

(EX.如果太陽打西邊升起,puthing就可以考700分)

但是這裡是科學家推測有可能發生的事情

為什麼還用這were to 的形式呢?


不是有一句話說 If I were you, I would not do that.
這裡IF子句裡過去式是表示與現在事實相反 並非未來事實吧？
同樣道理 正因為隕石沒打到地球 所以IF子句裡的時態才用過去式
表示和現在沒被打到的事實相反囉..... 我是這樣子想的啦

[davidslin]

小弟拋磚一下

(A) 用can來表推測不如ocould好

(B) if 裡面的假設法怪

我本來也覺得 a tremendous amount of 有重複句意之嫌

不過剛剛查到有這樣的例句

They cost They cost a tremendous amount of money.

(C) that都是代2000BF19,且平衡that ......and that

(還有一個could......but would看起來也不錯)


(D) if 子句裡面用法怪, can也不好 ,句尾的it也指代不清

(E) if 子句裡面用法怪, it更不知道代誰



小弟有兩問題:

1.but 可以不加comma直接這樣用嗎? 一般好像都是 " 句1,but 句2"

2.if it were to 是表示跟未來事實相反的假設

(EX.如果太陽打西邊升起,puthing就可以考700分)

但是這裡是科學家推測有可能發生的事情

為什麼還用這were to 的形式呢?


不是有一句話說 If I were you, I would not do that.
這裡IF子句裡過去式是表示與現在事實相反 並非未來事實吧？
同樣道理 正因為隕石沒打到地球 所以IF子句裡的時態才用過去式
表示和現在沒被打到的事實相反囉..... 我是這樣子想的啦

我想順便在請教一下,C中,could前面可以省略主詞嗎?
and that, if it were to strike Earth, (it )could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would

如果它攻擊地球,??會造成大量的損害.......

[林小馬]

我想順便在請教一下,C中,could前面可以省略主詞嗎?
and that, if it were to strike Earth, (it )could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would

如果它攻擊地球,??會造成大量的損害.......

這個不是could前面省略主辭喔~~~
C帶入
Scientists have identified an asteroid, 200 BF19, that is about half a mile and that, if it were to strike Earth, could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would probably not cause planetwide destruction.

這個if it were to strike Eearth應該算是插入句
所以你可以想像她不存在
你就會看到
an asteroid that.... and that...的平衡了

把插入句和同位語拿掉以後如下
Scientists have identified an asteroid that is about half a mile and that could do tremendous damage...