文法正確否? "... led to licence plate quotas being imposed"?

改寫,可以從3方面來評估:

(A) 文法+習慣的符合
(B) 文意的符合
(C) 用字的優美

1. Frequent traffic jams in many cities have led to China s imposing the licence plate quotas.
(A) China\'s 應該避免
(B) 蓄意使用China\'s 隱喻 某些特定城市的交通擁擠 導致於全國的交通管制
(C) OK

2. Frequent traffic jams in many cities have led to the implementation of the licence plate quotas.
(A) OK
(B) implementation 通常是"長期的+中性的" 他與"imposition"是"機動的+強制的"實在不同
(C) implementation 使用不當

3. China has imposed restrictions of license plate quotas because of frequent traffic jams in many cities.
(A)OK
(B) totally different meanings - see 1(B)
(C) verbose

In this pattern the verb is followed by a preposition and its object and a direct object, convertible.
Traffic jams led-------S+vt
to China---------prep + noun
an imposing implementation of licence plate quotas-------------DO as adv.cl;imposing(adj);implement a scheme(vt)
implement vt, implement a scheme; to implement a scheme called "licence plate quotas".China implements a traffic policy called "licence plate quota"
impose vt, vi, licence plate quotas were imposed ; has been imposed upon. China imposed (=put) a "certain" ban on "licence plate quota".

1. 作為句子並無不可，只是句意的關聯上(many cities in China而不是China的行政政策或手段)當中的因和果，要把重點(假如China這地點是有重要意義的話)放在句的關聯位置。 即是說句式寫別的情況或許沒錯的，但用在這句便不是英語人"慣寫"的方式。

2. 同上理由，這句把"China"完全消失了，那讀者便不明白作者是在說那些cities和那些quotas的意義。改寫中用led to the implementation of "something"是常用的英語表達方式。

3. 這句寫得比原文更直接和順暢，只有一點你加了restrictions of便改變了作者的原意，原文的licence plate quotas只是表示發牌或車牌的數量，但你加上"限制"意思的字便改變了少許客觀表達。並且英語用restriction on "something"而假著用of可能是說"action/動名詞"。再者這樣寫行政的方式便是在數量管理(上限)=quotas上再加上"限制"，邏輯上有點雙重制約的意思。
回看原文，作者的寫法編排是「先指出"問題"所在(國家)，再說明"對策"」，你的寫法是「這個"國家的行政方法是"作為應付"這個問題"」。意識上你的寫法是宣告報導，而不是分析報導。