[問題]gwd26-17

[ergh]

Responding to the public’s fascination with-and sometimes undue alarm over-possible threats from asteroids, a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet may collide with Earth.
A.a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood
that a particular asteroid or comet may
B.a scale that astronomers have developed rates how
likely it is for a particular asteroid or comet to
C.astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely
a particular asteroid or comet will be to
D.astronomers have developed a scale for rating the
likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will
E.astronomers have developed a scale that rates the
likelihood of a particular asteroid or comet that may.
參考答案為C

但是C中的be to 的用法是否有誤阿？
D中的for rating也不好
E的likelihood of 也改變句意

不知大大有無好的判斷方法阿？

[sweetymanman]

Responding--->only 人可以做這個動作 C/D/E
但是C中的be to 的用法是否有誤阿？ ---->這樣用OK阿
D中的for rating也不好 --->對，而且C：to do ....比D：that....來的好
E的likelihood of 也改變句意 --->may/ likehood 贅詞

[mingwhale]

剛剛在CD看到的討論，引用自香香茶

-To help deal with public fascination -- and sometimes undue alarm -- about possible threats from asteroids, astronomers have adopted a scale that rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will collide with Earth.

from New York Times

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract. ... 94D1494D81

答案應該是D

[Jen-Cheng]

個人覺得找到原文並不能代表原文的用法就是對的
ETS自認它本身的寫法才是對的，所以將原文改寫為正確的

此題...i support c

還原..likely
a particular asteroid or comet will be "likely" to

open to discuss

[mingwhale]

謝謝回覆…
當初我一直看不懂will be的用法
如果還原為a particular asteroid or comet will be "likely" to
wll 跟 be likely to 句意上會不會重覆的意味呢？

請大家繼續討論，謝謝。

[Jen-Cheng]

當然有，但是看D,E, likelyhood...will, likelyhood...may
一樣有，我覺得D,E...awkward(這個字有點難體會)
雖然likelihood在這的用法都是對的，感覺起來ETS較愛be likely to

[sweetymanman]

support "C"

[A級垂耳兔]

莫老師說C...我也支持C
雖有google原文...但關鍵處還是不一樣...表目的用to不用for
答案E的likelihood與may語意重複....砍

[PureRay]

OG中有一題我現在找不到，可能要請版友神一下

那一題也是講慧星還是隕石撞地球的機率

oG解釋說用will意思表示一定會撞，may/might表示可能會撞，用may/might比較對

所以我這題就自動選E了...

[Becky Chiang]

但是這題目是說
astronomers已經發展一種 a scale，目的用來評估a particular asteroid or comet 撞上地球的可能。按照句意，不是只"可能"撞上的可能性吧。

open to discuss。

[jasonhsu]

develop + to V / for Ving

在OG11th 的softcopy中 Question 51:
In developing new facilities [b]for[/b] the incineration of solid wastes，we must avoid the danger of shifting environmental problems from (1andfills polluting the water to polluting the air with incinerators．) ()=劃線

develop + for / develop + to 都出現過, 不過感覺在這題中這是小問題~~

be likely to V ===> 若要用此 phrase, 一定要用 will be,
==> how likely XXX will be to V, will be 不是 C 的問題

但"感覺上", how likely 很怪,
若這句是兩人間的對話, 問 how likely XXXXXX?
你會怎摩回答? very likely?? XD ~~
我認為likely 就跟 probable/probably 一樣, 沒有人問 how, 通常在回答時出現, 且是個無法量化的東西~~
likelihood 就很明確, 它是要ㄧ個 probability
所以支持 D

PS. ㄧ切都是感覺~~~~~, 也不知對不對~~~ open to discussion

[mimieye]

有沒有可能這個will be跟to collide是分開的?
我們可以說
It will be very likely for a particular asteroid or comet to collide with Earth.
所以改成問句變成
How likely will a particular asteroid or comet be to collide with Earth?
然後放入句子中變成間接問句
how likely a particular asteroid or comet will be to collide with Earth
我不知道這樣的推論對不對耶
不過我想這是答案C的最好解釋了
答案D不太像正確答案的選項,因為
(1)OG裡大多用likely,沒用過likelihood,ETS不喜歡名詞,名詞囉唆
(2)ETS比較喜歡to V, 不喜歡用for Ving,兩者同時出現正確答案通常是to V

以上心得請賜教!!

[keane0727]

支持D
我覺得scale的功能是將"可能性"用具體的數字表達出來, 如0.3, 0.8, 0.9等而不是用a little likely, likely, very likely, 表達所以用likelihood好像比較好
另外, a scale這種非限定的字最好要伴隨解釋的文定要不然會很模糊, for在名詞後可表達名詞的功能。所以for比to好；to 引導的不定式是表動詞developed的目的，那麼這個a scale倒底是什麼？

[dibert8]

比較不定詞和介詞片語的差別:
This is a knife for cutting bread. (說明而已,沒有真的切麵包)
I need a knife to cut the bread. (動作接著就來)

(C) to rate (動作) 的主詞是 astronomers => 由天文學家去計算彗星撞地球的機率
(D) for rating (副詞) 修飾 developed ( a scale ) => 以天文學家研發的量度核算彗星撞地球的機率

這麼看來, New York Times 的那一句的意思比較接近 (D). 是不是由天文學家去計算彗星撞地球的機率似乎見仁見智,但是 (D) 的句意感覺比較客觀.

ETS 怎麼想, 只能再研究研究啦! 遇到這種題,在 (C) (D) 之間難以抉擇,時間有限之下拿出比較長短這招,填的答案就會是 (C) 喔!

[chris8888]

ex : How to solve this question.
=> explain how John to solve this question.
=> explain how likely Jonh will be to solve this question 肯定句(John will be likely to solve this question) 約翰很可能可以解出這問題.

for your reference!!