參考答案：

參考答案：

Answer to Question 91

Choice A, the best answer, is concise and grammatically correct, using the comparative preposition like to express the comparison between many self-taught artists and Perle Hessing. Choices B and E, which replace A's prepositional phrase with clauses introduced by as, use auxiliary verbs that cannot properly be completed by any part of the verb phrase in the main clause: neither have ... did not begin nor did... did not begin is logically or grammatically sound. In C and D, Just as with and Just like are both unnecessarily wordy.

Answer to Question 92

Choice D is the best answer, stating grammatically and clearly that, with the 1986 Tax Reform Act, taxpayers confronted more simultaneous changes than ever before. In choice A, the past perfect had [confronted] illogically places the 1986 events in the same time frame as Never before had...; a simple past tense is needed to present the 1986 events as following the earlier ones. Choices B and C awkwardly place at once between confronted and its direct object, changes. Furthermore, B illogically states that the Act itself was many changes, when the point is rather that it presented many changes, and as many ... that is an unidiomatic comparison. Choice E, too, presents an unidiomatic comparison with so many... that.

Answer to Question 93

Choice E, the best answer, grammatically and clearly makes the statement "x and y can be crucial," in which x and y are parallel clauses, each introduced by the conjunction how. This parallelism is preferable to the use of the noun phrase the frequency in A, B, and C. Furthermore, the frequency of inventory turnovers in A and B is less clear than how frequently the inventory turns over. In B and C is often does not agree with the plural compound subject. Choice D ungrammatically reverses the subject-verb order with is the inventory.

Answer to Question 94

Only C, the best answer, clearly and correctly states that James believed facial expressions perform both functions mentioned: the construction James believed that facial expressions not only x is completed by but also y, where x and y are grammatically parallel. In A, the absence of but also y results in a sentence fragment. In B, but also contributing is not parallel to not only provide. Choices D and E again lack but also y, instead introducing independent clauses that fail to associate the second part of the belief unequivocally with James. Also, the passive construction is... contributed to by them in E and the phrase the feeling of it in D are awkward in context.

Answer to Question 95

Choice C, the best answer, offers a concise and idiomatic grammatical sequence: the main verb seem is followed by an infinitive (to indicate), which is in turn followed by its direct object, a noun clause introduced by the relative pronoun that. In A, seem is followed by like, a preposition improperly used to introduce a clause. Also, it either disagrees in number with figures or lacks an antecedent altogether. In B, as if is introduced awkwardly and (in context) unidiomatically between seem and the infinitive. Also, with that omitted, B is ungrammatical. Choices D and E, with of substituted for that, are likewise ungrammatical: of, a preposition, can introduce a phrase, but not a clause.

Answer to Question 96

The correct choice will include to assure, an infinitive parallel to to prevent. Thus, A, B, and C are disqualified. Moreover, the participial phrases in A and C (assuring... ), easily construed as adjectives modifying latches, are confusing. Choices B and C are additionally faulty because, in omitting the noun doors, they fail both to specify what is being closed and to supply an antecedent for the pronoun them. D offers the necessary infinitive, but the gerund phrase closing ... imprecisely refers to the act of closing the doors rather than to the condition of the closed doors. Choice E, with its idiomatic and precise noun clause, is the best answer.

Answer to Question 97

All nouns and pronouns grammatically referring back to the plural noun Iguanas must be plural. Choices A, B, D, and E all produce agreement problems by using singular forms (it, animal), leaving C the best choice. In addition, D is awkward and wordy, and E offers a participial phrase (being ...) where the beginning of an independent clause is required.

Answer to Question 98

Choice D, the best answer, produces a clear sentence in which parallel structure (two clauses introduced by that) underscores meaning: the crash demonstrated [1] that markets are integrated and [2] that events may be transmitted. The other choices lack this parallel structure and contain additional faults. The phrases more... than never in A and more ... as never in C are both unidiomatic: the idiom is more than ever. Choices B, C, and E end with so, while, and as, respectively: and that is needed so that two parallel clauses may be properly joined. Finally, B and E misplace the adverb more, which here should come just before closely: closer, not more frequent, integration of the world's capital markets is what facilitates the transmission of economic events.

Answer to Question 99

The word splitting must function as a noun to parallel the other items in the noun series of which it is part: reversals, onset, and eruptions. In B, the best choice, the definite article the clearly signifies that splitting is to be taken as a noun. In A, splitting introduces a verb phrase that breaks the parallelism of the noun series. In C, the verb split is similarly disruptive. Choice D, grammatically vague, resembles C if split is a verb and E if split is an adjective. In E, continents illogically replaces the splitting in the series: although the impacts in question may have caused continents to split, they did not cause those continents that were split apart 80 million years ago to materialize.

Answer to Question 100

Choice C is the best answer. Either of the following constructions would be idiomatic here: x forbids y to do z or x prohibits y from doing z. Choices A and B violate idiom; \ D and E introduce constructions that, in context, are faulty. First of all, both bans that x cannot be done and bans that y cannot do x are unidiomatic formulations. Secondly, the negative cannot after bans is illogical.