답변을 얻은 뒤 반드시 감사의 덧글을 남기고, 좋은 답변은 채택해 주시는 센스...
질문할 때 예의를 지키시기 바랍니다.(빨리... 고수분만..... 이런 식의 요구는 자제 바랍니다.)
질문 내용 :
[1]
He recounts the discovery of the 2,500 year old mnemonic technique known as the memory palace, by which Simonides of Ceos supposedly recalled the exact location of the victims of the collapse of a banquet hall in which he was speaking in order to guide grief-stricken relatives to the bodies of their loved ones.

[2]
He also does an excellent job of describing the ways in which the increasing availability of written sources has created a world in which, if one reads at all, one read extensively rather than intensively.

[3]
There is no one root for except the obvious candidate, the author himself.

[4]
It is too bad that the author, who tells so many important stories that have great relevance in this age of hyper-information, chose not stick to those stories.

[1]과 [2]는 해석은 자연스럽게 되는데...
밑줄 친 관계대명사의 용법을 잘 모르겠습니다..

[3]번은 해석이 잘 안됩니다...

[4]번은 밑줄친 chose 이후의 용법을 잘 몰라.. 해석이 매끄럽지 못합니다...

이상입니다.ㅠ