gwd8 - 11, 41

girls

GWD8-Q11:

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing. A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing. B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished. C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing. D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished. E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.

Q11 is a problematic question.

I chose A not C just because "...monkfish, which contributes to..." is not an acceptable structure (according to OG) to describe the fact/situation in the previous clauses. If 'which' modifies monkfish, it creates illogical meaning that monkfish will generate (its) own depletion.

But "their" in A to modify monkfish as a spieces different from Cod and Hadcock seems to be less appropriate than "its". Thus, "their" is a confusing referent to either "monkfish" as a collective noun or "Cod and Hadcock" as a group.

NN, please help!!

GWD8-Q41

When drive-ins were at the height of their popularity in the late 1950’s, some 4,000 existed in the United States, but today there are less than one-quarter that many.

A. there are less than one-quarter that many B. there are fewer than one-quarter as many C. there are fewer than one-quarter of that amount D. the number is less than one-quarter the amount E. it is less than one-quarter of that amount

Q41 is a problematic question.

I chose C based on feeling. But I have the impression that in OG, "amount" usually refers to uncountable noun, such as water, energy and resource, not to countable nouns, such as cars, relations and memories, in this case, 4000 drive-ins. But “amounts” can refer to countable nouns, as the case in OG 243, amounts of suspected carcinogens…

Other examples in OG: 101, 132

amount in Webster:

usage Number is regularly used with count nouns <a large number of mistakes> <any number of times> while amount is mainly used with mass nouns <annual amount of rainfall> <a substantial amount of money>. The use of amount with count nouns has been frequently criticized; it usually occurs when the number of things is thought of as a mass or collection <glad to furnish any amount of black pebbles -- New Yorker> <a substantial amount of film offers -- Lily Tomlin> or when money is involved <a substantial amount of loans -- E. R. Black>.

himba

此题大难. 大概因为涉及多个有争议的问题.

前面已列出:

amount in Webster:

usage Number is regularly used with count nouns <a large number of mistakes> <any number of times> while amount is mainly used with mass nouns <annual amount of rainfall> <a substantial amount of money>. The use of amount with count nouns has been frequently criticized; it usually occurs when the number of things is thought of as a mass or collection <glad to furnish any amount of black pebbles -- New Yorker> <a substantial amount of film offers -- Lily Tomlin> or when money is involved <a substantial amount of loans -- E. R. Black>.

今再列出关于 fewer/less on Webster:

usage - The traditional view is that less applies to matters of degree, value, or amount and modifies collective nouns, mass nouns, or nouns denoting an abstract whole while fewer applies to matters of number and modifies plural nouns. Less has been used to modify plural nouns since the days of King Alfred and the usage, though roundly decried, appears to be increasing. Less is more likely than fewer to modify plural nouns when distances, sums of money, and a few fixed phrases are involved <less than 100 miles> <an investment of less than $2000> <in 25 words or less> and as likely as fewer to modify periods of time <in less (or fewer) than four hours>.

不过总体觉得 amount 用得怪译, 倘若如 webster 所言 less 可以拿来修饰 数字的话, A 其实最好啊 - 因为解决了 amount 的问题, 准确地使用了 many 啊!! 可是怎么就没有人提 A 呢? 从口语好象 A 也很好啊. 是否因为这里的number 不在 "distances, sums of money, and a few fixed phrases "之列啊?

girls

I chose C based on feeling. But I have the impression that in OG, "amount" usually refers to uncountable noun,

Sorry, I meant collective/mass nouns, not uncountable.

Examples in OG101, 132

101. Even though the direct costs of malpractice disputes amounts to a sum lower than one percent of the $541 billion the nation spent on health care last year, doctors say fear of lawsuits plays a major role in health-care inflation.

(A) amounts to a sum lower

(B) amounts to less

(C) amounted to less

(D) amounted to lower

(E) amounted to a lower sum

The correct choice must feature a verb that agrees with the plural noun costs and refers to an action completed last year (past tense). The verb amounts in A and B fulfills neither condition, and amounts to a sum in A is redundant. The same redundancy occurs in E, and the construction a lower sum than is awkward and imprecise in the context of the sentence. In D, the adjective lower is erroneously used in place of the noun less as object of the preposition to. Choice C is best.

132. According to a study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, companies in the United States are providing job training and general education for nearly eight million people, about equivalent to the enrollment of the nation's four-year colleges and universities.

(A) equivalent to the enrollment of

(B) the equivalent of those enrolled in

(C) equal to those who are enrolled in

(D) as many as the enrollment of

(E) as many as are enrolled in

The phrases equivalent to in A, the equivalent of in B, and equal to in C have too broad a range of meanings to be used precisely here: that is, they can suggest more than merely numerical equality. Also, as quantitative expressions, equiva­lent and equal often modify nouns referring to uncountable things, as in "an equivalent amount of resistance" or "a volume of water equal to Lake Michigan." To establish numerical comparability between groups with countable members, the phrase as many as is preferable. Choice D, however, uses this phrase improperly in comparing eight million people to enrollment, not to other people. The comparison in E, the best choice, is logical because people is understood as the subject of are enrolled.