文章：According to many analysts, labor-management relations in the United States are undergoing a fundamental change: traditional adversarialism is giving way to a new cooperative relationship between the two sides and even to concessions from labor. These analysts say the twin shocks of nonunion competition in this country and low-cost, high-quality imports from abroad are forcing unions to look more favorably at a variety of management demands: the need for wage restraint and reduced benefits as well as the abolition of "rigid" work rules, seniority rights, and job classifications. Sophisticated proponents of these new developments cast their observations in a prolabor light. n return for their concessions, they point out, some unions have bargained for profit sharing, retraining rights, and job--security guarantees. Unions can also trade concessions for more say on the shop floor, where techniques such as quality circles and quality-of-work­ life programs promise workers greater control over their own jobs. Unions may even win a voice in investment and pricing strategy, plant location, and other major corporate policy decisions previously reserved to management. Opponents of these concessions from labor argue that such concessions do not save jobs, but either prolong the agony of dying plants or finance the plant relocations that employers had intended anyway. Companies make investment decisions to fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives, opponents point out, and labor costs are usually just a small factor in the equation. Moreover, unrestrained by either loyalty to their work force or political or legislative constraints on their mobility, the companies eventually cut and run, concessions or no concessions. Wage-related concessions have come under particular attack, since opponents believe that high union wages underlay much of the success of United States industry in this century. They point out that a long-standing principle, shared by both management and labor, has been that workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. Moreover, high wages have given workers the buying power to propel the economy forward. f proposals for pay cuts, two-tier wage systems, and subminimum wages for young workers continue to gain credence, opponents believe the U.S. social structure will move toward that of a less-developed nation: a small group of wealthy investors, a sizable but still minority bloc of elite professionals and highly skilled employees, and a huge mass of marginal workers and unskilled laborers. Further, they argue that if unions willingly engage in concession bargaining on the false grounds that labor costs are the source of a company's problems, unions will find themselves competing with Third World pay levels-a competition they cannot win. 想请问郭老师，这题opponents观点是在第三段，但是原文和选项要怎么对照呢...怎么从观点看出态度？

请唐塘老师分析一下这道题，谢谢

想问下may老师什么时候变化率的计算公式 什么时候分母是被减数，什么时候是减数 像这题求时间的变化率分母是距离也就是被减数，但是对于其他年增长之类变化率的分母就是减数，想知道这个区别，谢谢老师

请文静老师解答：老师我读主旨大概总结为：各个政府开出优惠政策来吸引商家只会两败俱伤，这样不会创造更多的就业岗位，只会影响工作的布局。觉得B很核心的反应了文章主旨。因为从文章主旨上读出这样的行为各个政府都不受益只是影响工作布局罢了，那为什么政府还要重点关注E里竞争者开的条件呢？

老师您在讲课的时候把总数设为了a,将有副作用设为y,将有疗效设为了x,那通过条件（1）就可以知道有疗效为0.9a,没有疗效为0.1a,但是是怎么得出“没疗效有副作用”也为0.1a从而结合题设把y用a的式子表示的呢？感觉只能得出T这一栏里“没有疗效”的总数为0.1a哇

想问下may老师这题怎么做

想问下may老师怎么做

想问下may老师怎么做

[急] 这题七龙珠答案给的C，但是这里的contemporary只能是形容词或者名词，是不是不能直接接在名词后面用？如果这是个硬伤的话，E会不会更好一些呢？

[急] 请问May老师，这里通过连接下面圆的圆心，是不是是不是可以得到r跟b的直接关系，这样选A是不是就可以了呢？

当时老师讲的答案是A。statement 1 sufficient；statement 2 not sufficient。但是我现在不太理解了，觉得答案有些问题，能不能再详细的讲一下这道题怎么做？谢谢！