[問題]OG152

[世界和平]

152. When the technique known as gene-splicing was invented in the early 1970's, it was feared that scientists might inadvertently create an "Andromeda strain," a microbe never before seen on Earth that might escape from the laboratory and it would kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it.

(A)it would kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it
(B)it might kill vast numbers of humans with no natural defenses against it
(C)kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it
(D)kill vast numbers of humans who have no natural defenses against them
(E)kill vast numbers of humans with no natural defenses against them


This sentence requires parallel verb forms within the relative clause that might escape... and kill. C, the best choice, uses parallel verb forms that are followed appropriately by the conditional would have in the who clause that modifies humans. Choices A and B each violate parallel construction by introducing a new independent clause, it would kill... and it might kill... Though choices D and E begin by observing parallelism, the use of them at the end of each creates a problem of pronoun reference: them cannot refer to the singular microbe. In addition, choices B, D, and E lack would and thus do not express the conditional.


疑問：
1. 如OG解釋所言, would表示condiitonal。暫且不論(d)中的指代錯誤-them，就句意上有無would的差異為何？

2.同樣不看(E)中的指代錯誤，with子句是否會變成修飾"microbe"？

謝謝！

[維尼]

152. When the technique known as gene-splicing was invented in the early 1970's, it was feared that scientists might inadvertently create an "Andromeda strain," a microbe never before seen on Earth that might escape from the laboratory and it would kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it.

(A)it would kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it
(B)it might kill vast numbers of humans with no natural defenses against it
(C)kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it
(D)kill vast numbers of humans who have no natural defenses against them
(E)kill vast numbers of humans with no natural defenses against them


This sentence requires parallel verb forms within the relative clause that might escape... and kill. C, the best choice, uses parallel verb forms that are followed appropriately by the conditional would have in the who clause that modifies humans. Choices A and B each violate parallel construction by introducing a new independent clause, it would kill... and it might kill... Though choices D and E begin by observing parallelism, the use of them at the end of each creates a problem of pronoun reference: them cannot refer to the singular microbe. In addition, choices B, D, and E lack would and thus do not express the conditional.


疑問：
1. 如OG解釋所言, would表示condiitonal。暫且不論(d)中的指代錯誤-them，就句意上有無would的差異為何？

2.同樣不看(E)中的指代錯誤，with子句是否會變成修飾"microbe"？

謝謝！

1. 使用would就是採用假設語氣 我覺得是不是需要用假設法是根據句意決定 因為人們會不會有抗體這件事可能無法確認 所以作者採用假設法
2. 我覺得with不會變成修飾microbe 不過with no卻又awkward 應該用 without 比較好的樣子

[世界和平]

1. 使用would就是採用假設語氣 我覺得是不是需要用假設法是根據句意決定 因為人們會不會有抗體這件事可能無法確認 所以作者採用假設法
2. 我覺得with不會變成修飾microbe 不過with no卻又awkward 應該用 without 比較好的樣子

維尼兄,

多謝解釋！

針對with部分，想再請教：

若with前有"," 是否才會變成"修飾主詞-microbe"?
以(e)選項結構則是修飾緊鄰之名詞-humans?

謝謝！

[revival]

頂

我也有這個疑問說 ><

with的片語到底是修飾前面的鄰近名詞還是主詞呢

[afra_hung]

沒錯沒錯...有沒有人可以解答一下呢??

[dibert8]

我認為 humans who have no natural defenses = humans with no natural defenses 不知有無其他看法?

[dibert8]

利用句子的主結構與副結構解題:
逗點後面 a microbe never before seen on Earth that might escape from the laboratory 是同位語說明 Andromeda strain 略去不看;
平衡 and, 發現要接動詞 => (C) (D) (E) 選一個
an "Andromeda strain 是單數 => (C)

[dibert8]

1. and 前面沒有逗點, 不是另起一句, 不須重複主詞 => (A) (B) 不選
2. and 平衡 escape 跟 kill

[larry.tw]

152. When the technique known as gene-splicing was invented in the early 1970's, it was feared that scientists might inadvertently create an "Andromeda strain," a microbe never before seen on Earth that might escape from the laboratory and it would kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it.

(A)it would kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it
(B)it might kill vast numbers of humans with no natural defenses against it
(C)kill vast numbers of humans who would have no natural defenses against it
(D)kill vast numbers of humans who have no natural defenses against them
(E)kill vast numbers of humans with no natural defenses against them

我想問的跟樓上的很像,
不過無法確定,還請各位NN來解救一下~~
就是with的用法
E選項,撇開沒有虛擬語氣的錯誤,with是不是可能修飾humans or microbe 導致修飾不清??

[dibert8]

(E) 錯在代名詞數量不一致 (them 應該是 it)
with 最可能修飾的就是 humans, 修飾上應該沒有太大的問題
用 with 其實改變句意了. with 修飾 humans, 表示沒有免疫力的無一倖免;原句用的是假設語氣:沒有免疫力的可能會死.