GWD5-1

網站 · 由 **agk99** » 2004-09-02 03:02

Q1:
So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was persistent, Alfred E. Smith and Franklin D. Roosevelt recruited Perkins to work within the government, rather than as a social worker.

A.and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was persistent,
B.and lobbying for wage and hour reform was persistent, so that
C.her lobbying for wage and hour reform persistent, that
D.lobbying for wage and hour reform was so persistent,
E.so persistent her lobbying for wage and hour reform, that

答案是E
想聽聽大家的意見

由 **illuna** » 2004-09-02 15:12

我的做法.....看到So+adj+beV....聯想到是S+beV+so+adj+that的倒裝...後面一定要出現that子句...所以ABD不選.....

So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, ......

原題中又用了前後兩個逗點將畫線部分跟主要子句隔開.....

因此判斷為分詞構句.....又就CE來看應該是省略連接詞的分詞構句...

且前後主詞不同保留...變成S1+V, S2+Ving/Vpp的結構......

再加上平衡.....

So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, so persistent (being) her lobbying for wage and hour reform, that.........

原句可以還原成.....

Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry were so dogged and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was so persistent that...........

大家討論討論.....

網站 · 由 **agk99** » 2004-09-02 22:08

大家還討論哩，你沒考到700就給我去重考知道嗎?
看到解答有點被嚇到的agk99留

由 **James** » 2004-12-15 17:10

可以說因為平衡的關係加上so...that...的用法，所以畫線部分應該要有so，沒有的先刪嗎？-->A/C去掉
沒有that-->A/D去掉
用因為so...that ...不等於so that -->B去掉
不過我當初解的時候，是在想第二句是不是不用出現so，只要第一句有就可以了，所以選了C

由 **gogotu** » 2005-06-21 19:40

我的問題是，第二個so...的be動詞為何省？這兩件事的單複數不一樣啊：
So dogged were (多數) ......, so persistent her lobbying （單數）.....

由 **zuckzhc** » 2005-06-21 20:25

illuna \$m[1]:我的做法.....看到So+adj+beV....聯想到是S+beV+so+adj+that的倒裝...後面一定要出現that子句...所以ABD不選.....

So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, ......

原題中又用了前後兩個逗點將畫線部分跟主要子句隔開.....

因此判斷為分詞構句.....又就CE來看應該是省略連接詞的分詞構句...

且前後主詞不同保留...變成S1+V, S2+Ving/Vpp的結構......

再加上平衡.....

So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, so persistent (being) her lobbying for wage and hour reform, that.........

原句可以還原成.....

Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry were so dogged and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was so persistent that...........

大家討論討論.....

想請問一下,
為何and可以省略,因為後面還有再接另一個完整的句子啊?
在印象中這樣的用法好像很少,有沒有例句可以說明,感謝感謝

由 **zuckzhc** » 2005-06-21 22:53

zuckzhc \$m[1]:
illuna \$m[1]:我的做法.....看到So+adj+beV....聯想到是S+beV+so+adj+that的倒裝...後面一定要出現that子句...所以ABD不選.....

So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, ......

原題中又用了前後兩個逗點將畫線部分跟主要子句隔開.....

因此判斷為分詞構句.....又就CE來看應該是省略連接詞的分詞構句...

且前後主詞不同保留...變成S1+V, S2+Ving/Vpp的結構......

再加上平衡.....

So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, so persistent (being) her lobbying for wage and hour reform, that.........

原句可以還原成.....

Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry were so dogged and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was so persistent that...........

大家討論討論.....

想請問一下,
為何and可以省略,因為後面還有再接另一個完整的句子啊?
在印象中這樣的用法好像很少,有沒有例句可以說明,感謝感謝

Sorry 我看懂了, illuna大說的是對的
感謝

由 **teddyboy** » 2005-11-19 01:11

好強好強....原來原句是這麼來的啊

可以請教一下, 這裡倒裝的原因是莫北北說的由輕到重的關係嗎???
另外, 再問一個有點蠢的問題.....用分詞代替連接詞的時機是在二個動作同時發生的狀況下嗎???

再麻煩各位大大幫忙解惑一下...感恩

由 **carollai** » 2005-11-30 12:09

teddyboy \$m[1]:好強好強....原來原句是這麼來的啊

可以請教一下, 這裡倒裝的原因是莫北北說的由輕到重的關係嗎???
另外, 再問一個有點蠢的問題.....用分詞代替連接詞的時機是在二個動作同時發生的狀況下嗎???

再麻煩各位大大幫忙解惑一下...感恩

我想應該是由重到輕的 :smile

由 **Francis** » 2005-12-02 20:21

zuckzhc \$m[1]:
zuckzhc \$m[1]:
illuna \$m[1]:我的做法.....看到So+adj+beV....聯想到是S+beV+so+adj+that的倒裝...後面一定要出現that子句...所以ABD不選.....
So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, ......
原題中又用了前後兩個逗點將畫線部分跟主要子句隔開.....
因此判斷為分詞構句.....又就CE來看應該是省略連接詞的分詞構句...
且前後主詞不同保留...變成S1+V, S2+Ving/Vpp的結構......
再加上平衡.....
So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, so persistent (being) her lobbying for wage and hour reform, that.........

原句可以還原成.....
Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry were so dogged and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was so persistent that...........

大家討論討論.....

想請問一下,
為何and可以省略,因為後面還有再接另一個完整的句子啊?
在印象中這樣的用法好像很少,有沒有例句可以說明,感謝感謝

Sorry 我看懂了, illuna大說的是對的
感謝

但是我沒看懂呢還是不解為何and省略？
看不出是省略的分詞構句？麻煩各位再解釋一下感激阿～

由 **stilalala** » 2005-12-02 21:18

Francis \$m[1]:
zuckzhc \$m[1]:
zuckzhc \$m[1]:
illuna \$m[1]:我的做法.....看到So+adj+beV....聯想到是S+beV+so+adj+that的倒裝...後面一定要出現that子句...所以ABD不選.....
So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, ......
原題中又用了前後兩個逗點將畫線部分跟主要子句隔開.....
因此判斷為分詞構句.....又就CE來看應該是省略連接詞的分詞構句...
且前後主詞不同保留...變成S1+V, S2+Ving/Vpp的結構......
再加上平衡.....
So dogged were Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry, so persistent (being) her lobbying for wage and hour reform, that.........

原句可以還原成.....
Frances Perkins’ investigations of the garment industry were so dogged and her lobbying for wage and hour reform was so persistent that...........

大家討論討論.....

想請問一下,
為何and可以省略,因為後面還有再接另一個完整的句子啊?
在印象中這樣的用法好像很少,有沒有例句可以說明,感謝感謝

Sorry 我看懂了, illuna大說的是對的
感謝

但是我沒看懂呢還是不解為何and省略？
看不出是省略的分詞構句？麻煩各位再解釋一下感激阿～

不知道這樣說對與否
有錯麻煩大家指證
老莫說過,可以用分辭代替連接詞
就把and....was so persistent.....
改成and去掉,加"," ,然後was -->being -->省略
原句倒裝,再把so persistent搬到前面去

由 **Miranda's** » 2005-12-25 00:51

gogotu \$m[1]:我的問題是，第二個so...的be動詞為何省？這兩件事的單複數不一樣啊：
So dogged were (多數) ......, so persistent her lobbying （單數）.....

我也很想知道為什麼，希望來個人救救我們 3Q

由 **luckydog** » 2006-04-03 00:20

應該是莫老伯說的：分詞代替連接詞，主動用V-ing,第二句中的動詞是was,所以主動用being，但是being又可以省略，所以就成為答案中的那個樣子so persistent her lobbying for wage and hour reform。有誤請指正……

由 **dreammyevian** » 2006-10-27 07:15

為什麼我也有上莫伯伯的課可是我都不會想到呢>__<
唉><

由 **aon283** » 2006-11-08 23:42

但是老莫說分詞代替連接詞適用在主詞一樣的狀況下

S+V1 and V2---->S+V1, V2ing

這題主詞又不一樣

GWD5-1

GWD5-1

誰在線上