possibility 1: acts of [sabotage and damage] done by weapons of war possibility 2: [acts of sabotage] and [damage done by weapons of war] possibility 3: [[acts of sabotage] and damage] done by weapons of war
可如果是possibility 1,那就意味着,汉语译文不对;
可如果是possibility 2,那保险不赔的是什么呢?是“故意损坏行为"和”战争武器造成的损坏“,这两个并列,太奇怪了,换句话来说,不应该免赔“行为”,只能免赔“行为”的结果吧。这就意味着,英文不对,或者说,acts of sabotage在这儿是metonymy修辞用法?
如果是possibility 3, 蓄意损坏和损坏,都由战争武器造成,为啥不直接用sabotage and damage,还要加上acts of呢?