[問題]gwd-3-10

[dibert8]

(C) 不選會不會是 little 的問題? (little 形容物體意思是"小",當名詞意思是"少")

from Merriam-Webster,
little
[adjective]
1: not big: as: small in size or extent : tiny <has little feet>
2: not much: as: existing only in a small amount or to a slight degree <has little money>
3: small in importance or interest : trivial
[noun]
a small amount, quantity, or degree; also : practically nothing <little has changed>

[la-vie]

1.選項B的were it to do so... it代替的主詞為何!?

理論上是代the polar ice,這樣句意才會通...但之前yongzhou所提little of the polar ice的可能性...讓我無法做出肯定的判斷

莫老師的筆記有說
＊假設法，與現在事實相反：
But for+N, S+should/would/could/might+原V
= If it were nor for +N, S+should/would/could/might+原V
= Were it not for +N, +should/would/could/might+原V
= Without +N, S+should/would/could/might+原V

其中的it=虛主詞

[dibert8]

有沒有可能是 were it to do so = were {the polar ice} to {melt during the summer} ?

[hwatai]

were it to do so 是 if it were to do so 的倒裝句，與未來事實相反的假設語氣

但是it的指涉太模糊，it只能指單一名詞，包括Antarctica及little；

而且用little作it，還原變成 if little of polar ice to melt during the summer，表示在未來根本不會融化→那又怎麼會淹水

所以it在這裡的用法應該是錯誤的，雖然我覺得這題應該要有假設語氣進入，但為何要用"與未來相反呢"? 只要"與事實相反"就可以了，與未來相反的假設語氣表逹在「未來絕對不會發生」(可見文法書，喜用太陽西邊升起作例子)，這個似不像AT喜歡的用語，很多forcast / esitmate的題目也都是委婉表達可能的情況

or else = otherwise，support (C)

[Kal-El]

支持C
is和are不同, 依然可省.

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

were it to do so 是 if it were to do so 的倒裝句，與未來事實相反的假設語氣

但是it的指涉太模糊，it只能指單一名詞，包括Antarctica及little；

而且用little作it，還原變成 if little of polar ice to melt during the summer，表示在未來根本不會融化→那又怎麼會淹水

所以it在這裡的用法應該是錯誤的，雖然我覺得這題應該要有假設語氣進入，但為何要用"與未來相反呢"? 只要"與事實相反"就可以了，與未來相反的假設語氣表逹在「未來絕對不會發生」(可見文法書，喜用太陽西邊升起作例子)，這個似不像AT喜歡的用語，很多forcast / esitmate的題目也都是委婉表達可能的情況

or else = otherwise，support (C)

C的 reflective前面沒有be動詞怎麼會對勒?

[Kal-El]

省略了

[rurulu]

were it to do so 是 if it were to do so 的倒裝句，與未來事實相反的假設語氣

所以it在這裡的用法應該是錯誤的，雖然我覺得這題應該要有假設語氣進入，但為何要用"與未來相反呢"? 只要"與事實相反"就可以了，與未來相反的假設語氣表逹在「未來絕對不會發生」(可見文法書，喜用太陽西邊升起作例子)，這個似不像AT喜歡的用語，很多forcast / esitmate的題目也都是委婉表達可能的情況

請問were it to do so 為什麼是與未來事實相反? 不是應該是與現在事實相反嗎?

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

were it to do so 是 if it were to do so 的倒裝句，與未來事實相反的假設語氣

所以it在這裡的用法應該是錯誤的，雖然我覺得這題應該要有假設語氣進入，但為何要用"與未來相反呢"? 只要"與事實相反"就可以了，與未來相反的假設語氣表逹在「未來絕對不會發生」(可見文法書，喜用太陽西邊升起作例子)，這個似不像AT喜歡的用語，很多forcast / esitmate的題目也都是委婉表達可能的情況

請問were it to do so 為什麼是與未來事實相反? 不是應該是與現在事實相反嗎?

grammar from longman:

You can express an unreal condition by deletion if and inverting the auxiliaries had, were, or should and the subject in an if-clause.

ex: Were I to confront Sarah, he says, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back(If I were to confront.......)

ex:In fact, had I known what was going to happen, I never would have said yes.(If I had known.........)

[chencraig0227]

were it to do so 是 if it were to do so 的倒裝句，與未來事實相反的假設語氣

但是it的指涉太模糊，it只能指單一名詞，包括Antarctica及little；

而且用little作it，還原變成 if little of polar ice to melt during the summer，表示在未來根本不會融化→那又怎麼會淹水

所以it在這裡的用法應該是錯誤的，雖然我覺得這題應該要有假設語氣進入，但為何要用"與未來相反呢"? 只要"與事實相反"就可以了，與未來相反的假設語氣表逹在「未來絕對不會發生」(可見文法書，喜用太陽西邊升起作例子)，這個似不像AT喜歡的用語，很多forcast / esitmate的題目也都是委婉表達可能的情況

or else = otherwise，support (C)

與未來事實相反的假設不一定間接代表未來不可能發生...
有分
"未來可能性小的假設"→表"萬一", if S should..., S...
"未來可能性大的假設"→ if S 現在式, S未來式...
"簡單對未來的推測"→ if S were to V, S would/should...

(B)的假設符合反藍部分的假設：如果未來polar ice(it)會melt(do so)的話, 那麼海平面就會上升...

因此我認為(B)的假設沒有問題, it的確有點模糊.
再者, be動詞前後單複數不一樣可以省略嘛? 這我有疑問!(...S1 are...and S2 (is))
另外, little polar ice → 很少的北極冰融化
little of polar ice → 少部分的北極冰融化
感覺little of比較恰當!!

support (B)