Розширена когезія: ланцюги референції (C1)
C1 текст про the former/the latter in comparative notes: this/that, анафора, заміна one/ones у академічному контексті. Англійська з перекладом.
Former and Latter in Comparative Policy Notes
Читання для практики
Читайте безкоштовно. Створіть акаунт, щоб перекладати слова, зберігати прогрес і тренуватися.
Стаття тренує зв'язність і ланцюжки відсилань у контексті comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models. Містить багато цільових конструкцій для автоматизації форми.
Рівень: C1Тема: Розширена когезія; this/that/these/those, pronoun chains, anaphora/cataphora, one/ones, such, the former/the latter; 30+ examples
Dr Whitmore opened comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models by naming the funding gap as the anchor for later reference. The text centred on the former/the latter in comparative notes, where this, that, these, and those bound paragraphs into a single argument. Tom noted that pronoun chains fail when authors assume readers share unstated background knowledge.
Nina reminded the group that substitution with one, ones, and such must preserve identifiable antecedents. Clara observed that former and latter work only when two referents remain unmistakably paired. By the end of the first review, advanced cohesion sounded less decorative and more structurally necessary.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit. In comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference. In comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference.
Tom noted that substitution with one or ones can reduce repetition without breaking cohesion. Nina noted that substitution with one or ones can reduce repetition without breaking cohesion. Nina repeated the phrase the regulatory framework at paragraph openings to strengthen lexical cohesion across comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models.
Readers expect that every demonstrative in comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models will point to an identifiable noun phrase. Readers expect that every demonstrative in comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models will point to an identifiable noun phrase. Nina noted that substitution with one or ones can reduce repetition without breaking cohesion.
Several teams misread the stakeholder forum; those misreadings spread because demonstratives lacked clear antecedents. During revision of comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, Clara flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers. The draft contrasted the consultation window with the stakeholder forum; the former received cautious praise, whereas the latter drew sustained criticism.
When the discussion turned to lexical cohesion, the chair reminded everyone that synonyms must not obscure referents. The committee approved a revised version of the stakeholder forum, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix. Clara and Dr Whitmore reviewed comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims.
The committee approved a revised version of the evidence base, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix. Nina defended the baseline survey; its implications unsettled Clara, and their debate clarified the reference chain. Dr Whitmore listed three weak links in the draft, and these gaps appeared again when Nina reread section two.
Dr Whitmore and Clara reviewed comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims. During revision of comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, Dr Whitmore flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers. Clara and Tom reviewed comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims.
The editors asked Clara to clarify demonstratives, and Clara did so before resubmitting comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models.
Nina reminded the group that substitution with one, ones, and such must preserve identifiable antecedents. Clara observed that former and latter work only when two referents remain unmistakably paired. By the end of the first review, advanced cohesion sounded less decorative and more structurally necessary.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit. In comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference. In comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference.
Tom noted that substitution with one or ones can reduce repetition without breaking cohesion. Nina noted that substitution with one or ones can reduce repetition without breaking cohesion. Nina repeated the phrase the regulatory framework at paragraph openings to strengthen lexical cohesion across comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models.
Readers expect that every demonstrative in comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models will point to an identifiable noun phrase. Readers expect that every demonstrative in comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models will point to an identifiable noun phrase. Nina noted that substitution with one or ones can reduce repetition without breaking cohesion.
Several teams misread the stakeholder forum; those misreadings spread because demonstratives lacked clear antecedents. During revision of comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, Clara flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers. The draft contrasted the consultation window with the stakeholder forum; the former received cautious praise, whereas the latter drew sustained criticism.
When the discussion turned to lexical cohesion, the chair reminded everyone that synonyms must not obscure referents. The committee approved a revised version of the stakeholder forum, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix. Clara and Dr Whitmore reviewed comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims.
The committee approved a revised version of the evidence base, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix. Nina defended the baseline survey; its implications unsettled Clara, and their debate clarified the reference chain. Dr Whitmore listed three weak links in the draft, and these gaps appeared again when Nina reread section two.
Dr Whitmore and Clara reviewed comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims. During revision of comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, Dr Whitmore flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers. Clara and Tom reviewed comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims.
The editors asked Clara to clarify demonstratives, and Clara did so before resubmitting comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models.
Про статтю
Рівень C1Фокус читання
Що вивчите
Розширена когезія; this/that/these/those, pronoun chains, anaphora/cataphora, one/ones, such, the former/the latter; 30+ examples
Стаття тренує зв'язність і ланцюжки відсилань у контексті comparative policy notes on healthcare financing models. Містить багато цільових конструкцій для автоматизації форми.
Коментарі
Увійдіть, щоб залишити коментар
УвійтиПоки що немає коментарів. Будьте першим!
