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？

求解

请问这道题为什么选B呀？

请问余数可以不是整数嘛？这道题怎么解释？

老师这个问题还没有解答 As引导的句子问题： 第一个句子as...as...是表示链接的内容程度一样吗，翻译起来感觉不太顺。the circumstances翻译成了这些规律和原则，哪些规律和原则？指代的是什么？此外with引导的是伴随状语？那as...as...作什么成分呢 第二个句子insofar查了是adv.在这个范围；到这个程度的意思。insofar as引导的是什么？insofar as the literature analysis is concerned怎么理解呢 第三个句子，四个as...第一个as意思是作为,第二个as意思也是作为？generally accepted as a race in any given region of ethnic competition怎么理解？第三和第四个as,表示和。。。一样，并列的是哪两个部分，什么和什么一样呢，后面the Chinese in California and the Jew in medieval Europe省略了什么

画线部分不理解。more...than..more后面的of the preindustrial European population比the 2 or 3 percent多？the preindustrial European population是不是应该放在investigate后面比较好

所以这一题c选择creating之所以修饰individual是因为这不是一个svo，+doing的形式所以采取的是就近修饰原则吗？

想问一下金老师，这道题c选择og解释里面说的是修饰individual不是reactions呀，您为啥说是修饰reactions呢

请问怎么从第二段看出来作者的观点是enable to enforce property right不是因为arbitrary 而是因为earlier parents often violated copyright law

我画粉色的这个是一个svo+doing形式吗 还是说它跟在that之后就不算一个完整句

请问什么情况下可以跳着修饰呀？