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？

请问当遇到这种完全看不懂不明白逻辑关系的题怎么办？可以帮忙分析一下这篇文章吗

011我是把去银行放进了第一个、第二个、第三个然后分别去算它的可能性，我算出来是10种诶，不太懂为什么答案是12种

老师这个题我不知道为啥每个人扔硬币的组合是2^3...我觉得应该是2*3=6种。然后它里面说P扔硬币的结果没有和任何一个人相同有8*7*7种我也不是很明白。。?

041我没看懂答案，为什么条件2可以确定b一定是整数呀

请金老师帮忙回答下 七龙珠E卷 34 考点： 并列，时态 我自己选的A， 理由：划线外are often dragged under and drowned的 主语that指的就是seabirds， 语义，并列都符合，虽然用的是encountered但是感觉可以接受 给出的答案C，说长线 devastating 海鸟 are often dragged and drowned. 感觉从修饰结构能接受，但是句意不是很理解

请金老师帮忙回答，七龙珠E卷的 32题 考点： 修饰，分号与逗号 读完句子直间排除了BCD， 保留了A，E,做题时没有注意到分号， 是否因为it appears darker是有完整主谓，E不能直接逗号接从而排除

七龙珠E卷的16题 请金老师帮忙解答： 可以看出考点：修饰，指代，时态 根据副词修饰形容词排除了AB， CDE选项，我能看出考点，但是缺选不对答案，比如我知道考点是指代，但是我无法判断percentage of it这个加上到底好不好， 再比如我能注意到 estimated that, 会认为需要用将来式，但是做题的时候感觉读C更顺，而选择C 实际做题的时候，应该怎么结合看出来的考点提高正确率呢？

请问什么时候用从句，什么时候用svo+doing呢？

请问"and consequently"的意思和作用与“and thus" 或“and also"是一样的嘛

since Robert boyle是什么意思怎么感觉怪怪的？所以这道题就是关注语义形式并列而不是看功能并列嘛？还有就是and also到底可不可以用？