获取方案

, the relationship described in the first part of the underlined portion could be expressed with scientists as the subject (scientists gathered evidence) or with evidence as the subject (evidence was gathered by scientists). The latter construction could be effective in some contexts, but here its relationship to the rest of the sentence appears to commit the writer to the claim that the evidence was digging in China. A.This version has a dangling participle, digging. Digging in sediments in northern China must modify scientists, not evidence. The passive structure of the main clause also creates an inadvisable distance between the words evidence and suggesting. Furthermore, the dependent clause starting with suggesting may be construed with either the evidence or the scientists, which makes this version unnecessarily ambiguous. B.This version has a dangling participle, digging. Digging in sediments in northern China must modify scientists, not evidence. C.Correct. Choosing scientists as the subject of gathered, this version corrects the dangling participle. It also uses a parallel active form of the verb emerge, and does not use redundant material. D.In this context it would be preferable to use a verb (emerged). The phrasing used here (suggests a much earlier emergence of ) sounds more stilted and is less clear and direct. In addition, inserting that which before previously thought is not only redundant but incorrect English. E.The flaws explained above in answer choice D are also present here.