"previously paying $7 per year" should refer to the students, which would make it a noun modifier, which is required to be placed next to the noun it modifies. It isn't. Incorrect. B) this time the phrase isn't even clear - "for which was previously paid" makes no sense C) "previously" is an adverb and should refer to a verb, but $7 is a noun - you'd need the adjective "previous" here. And really you'd want to say something like "compared to the previous requirement of $7 per year" D) I'm not a huge fan of this source. I assume the reason to eliminate this one is non-specification that the $7 per year required previously was specifically required for higher education. But I don't think the real test would make this the only distinction. They might also try to claim something's wrong with "instead of" (rather than "as opposed to" in answer E), but instead of can properly refer to a noun, as it does here... so it's fine. E) See above.
for which was previously paid per year,从句缺少主语
没有pay for the cost
这里变成了cost 和330美元比,而正确选项应该是7美元和330美元比
介词短语不能充当主语
for which 介词短语不能充当主语
for which was previously paid ...虽然for which指代逻辑上没问题了,但是for which..还原后变成 for the cost of higher education was paid 7 per year. 缺少主语,整个从句变成了目的状语,也失去了和前面330的可比性 pay 钱 for 人物
按照句子意思,是: was previously paid for the cost of higher education 主语不明确
for which was previously paid ...虽然for which指代逻辑上没问题了,但是for which..还原后变成 for the cost of higher education was paid 7 per year. 缺少主语,【从句也是句】后面加完整句!
which指代cost,正确
变成
$330 a year toward the cost of higher education, for the cost of higher education was previously paid per year.
which从句前面加了for导致后面变成了名词足足,不是从句。
for which $7 was previously paid per year. 原句句子顺序有问题
for the cost was previously 7$ paid per year缺主语
for which 7 was paid per year
把网站装进口袋
随时随地练习