LZM E5-16.Why不选A?

ppp1

KEY fficeffice" />

1 看不出A在意思上有什么不对的地方
2 D中that-clause什么作用？若作定语，句意不通且显累赘（一个that就引导三个字，照理完全可以省掉that的）
谢谢！

E5-16. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for
urban apartment houses including child-care facilities and clustered suburb
an houses including communal eating and social facilities.
B) that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to
include communal eating and social facilities
C) with child-care facilities included and for clustered suburban houses to
include communal eating and social facilities
D) that included child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses wit
h communal eating and social facilities
E) to include child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with c
ommunal eating and social facilities included

举例: the computer can reason like human, 表示电脑象人类一样能够reason, 强调"象"; the computers can reason as humans do, 表示电脑和人的思考是一样的, 强调两者在reason上的相同.

OG60中两者完全是相等的, 不能用like.
OG126两者不是同类, 是比喻的说法用like.

ppp1

谢谢！ fficeffice" />

这也是我的另一个长期的疑问。如何辨别歧义？主要按照语法规则，还是句子本身的含义？

如果按照语法规则，那歧义太多了。比如：任何一个“，+分词”做定语/状语，几乎都能从语法上认为是修饰前面的几乎任一个成分。而我们之所以没有歧义，是因为考虑了句意。

就这句话而言，选A如果翻译成中文：called for公寓房包括儿童设施和郊区房包括生活设施。我觉得没有歧义。原文中还有两个facility额外提供这种保证。所以，从句意上讲，我觉得A没有歧义。

根据LZM，一般而言that included这种形式的定语从句累赘，需要换成分词形式的定语（没找到根据，请牛牛指正）。

我对整个句子的理解是这样的，可能有误，请牛牛指正：

XXX, called for A 有xx特点 and B 有xx特点。

如果D对，则句子变成了：
xxx, called for 有xx特点的A and B 有xx特点。and的双方在逻辑意义上不很对称。

另外，根据LZM，如果called for后面第一个宾语比较短的话（不引起歧义），那么第二个for还是要省略的。不知他的这种观点是否正确。谢谢！