|
当状语从句的主语和谓语（甚至是宾语）一样时(谓语时态也必须一致），可以省略主语和谓语（甚至是宾语），
因此C选项补足省略部份后为：we see them as if we see them during the formation of the universe.
因此不符合逻辑的表述为：我们看见quassars, 就像我们在宇宙形成过程中看见他们一样。
E选项补足后：they appear to us as though they appear to us in the formation of the universe.
180. Quasars are so distant that their light has taken billions of years to reach the Earth; consequently, we see them as they were during the formation of the universe.
(A) we see them as they were during
(B) we see them as they had been during
(C) we see them as if during
(D) they appear to us as they did in
(E)they appear to us as though in
Choice C presents a dangling adverbial modifier, as if during ..., that illogically modifies we see.
In E, as though in distorts the meaning to suggest that we see the quasars in a hypothetical situation_ that is, that they may not have been involved in the formation of the universe.
我有一个类似的问题，关键在于OG对C和E的解释上。因为as if 应该和as though是一样的。
1、既然按E解释：as though表虚拟， they(quasars)可能没出现在宇宙形成过程k中（与事实相反，事实是：他们有存在宇宙中。）
那么C就对了，C也表虚拟，我们在宇宙形成过程中看见他们。（与事实相反，事实是：我们确实没存在宇宙中啊）
2、如果按C解释： “如同我们在宇宙形成过程中看见他们”是不逻辑的（因为事实我们并没在宇宙中出现）。没按虚拟来解释，却按陈述语气来解释了。与上面所说的虚拟矛盾。
则E中“如同我们在宇宙形成过程中看见他们”也是不逻辑的（因为事实我们也没有在宇宙中出现）。按C的陈述语气来解释。
那么这两个解释是矛盾的，对they(quasars)的虚拟是错的；对we的解释却不是虚拟，而是不逻辑，即根本没按虚拟来看。
一句话不可能对一部份虚拟，对一部份却按陈述语气来看吧。太矛盾了。
是不是应该结合两个解释来解释C和E才完整呢？即虚拟是错的（对they而言），即使不按虚拟看也是错的（对we而言）。
请大家帮忙看一看吧！
| 
