|
The British sociologist and activist Barbara Wootton once noted as a humorous example of income maldistribution <<that the elephant that gave rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo was earning>> annually exactly what she then earned as director of adult education for London.
B. that the elephant, giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo, had been earning
C. that there was an elephant giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo, and it earned
D. the elephant that gave rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo and was earning
E. the elephant giving rides to children at the Whipsnade Zoo and that it earned
正解はA。
Cは、本来一つのthat節の中に収まるべき内容が、カンマで区切られており、誤解を招きやすい。there is構文は通常の名詞を主語に置いた文体よりも曖昧。代名詞itが指す対象が曖昧（example, maldistribution, elephant）
Dは、maldistributionとthe elephantとが、前置詞がないため同格と見なさなくてはならないが、意味上不適切
Eは、前半部分にthat節がないのに、突然“and that ...”となり、パラレル違反。代名詞itが指す対象が曖昧（example, maldistribution, elephant）
と考え、AとBまでは絞り込むことができますが、両者の違い（なぜAの方がより最適なのか）が分かりません。
どなたかご教授ください。
custom2
|
