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？

老师请问这个问题如何解答

请Tina老师讲解。这个题目问法第一次遇到，说下面哪个不是削弱。这种问法相当于在问哪个是支持或者无关吗？做题时觉得AB都是与原文逻辑无关选项。CDE都在解释一个城市与另一个相比，心脏相关手术的成本因素不同，感觉都与原文相关，但是也不是削弱。这个题目感觉摸不着方向

请王文静老师解答。我理的逻辑链：因为热的地方容易缺水，且全球变暖让温度更高，所以肾结石病会增加。我选的E，说天气热的地方结石病多，冷的地方少。A选项给我感觉是因果倒置，病多的地方，天气热，反了。请老师讲解这个题的正确解题思路，并且指出我的错误在哪，如何避免

C选项的It为什么是指代不清呀

金老师好，当时看B觉得to conquer 的发起者是登山者，不应是hazards，但是根据including觉得是hazards包括这几个事，E从语法上成了amateur including了，这个Ving找动作发起者的规则这里不适用吗？

请老师讲一下思路

请老师讲下第七题思路。我的理解是条件1可以判断，想要成立则xy的个位数应该是5或者0，这样次方之后依然是5或者0，即xy的个位应该相等，所以答案是No。老师，我是错误理解题意了吗？

徐老师讲下第六题，是用捆绑法吗？做这种题特别没有思路，怎么办？

求问解题思路

请问这两题的解题思路