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？

请问这道题C选项and前后为什么可以是并列关系？

为什么选A？and之后的instead come是跟will avoid 并列嘛？还有就是 SVO+doing的形式到底能不能用？怎么用？

请问老师 画线部分这句话怎么没有谓语呢？我想了很久是省略了have been? 如果是这样的话，我发现省略的情况会影响我的阅读，可能是我对英文省略这块的语法不熟悉（什么时候可以省略，哪些可以省略等）老师能发我一些关于省略语法的资料我读读嘛，谢谢

从句不知道修饰谁的问题，有就近修饰的说法吗？怎么判断修饰谁呢：第一句 状语从句Where……打括号部分修饰museum还是Italy，说修饰Italy好像也翻译的通；第二句 that引导的从句 打括号部分修饰rationale还是social and political realities？在句中作什么成分呢; 第三句 that从句修饰evidence还是前面的Middle East？从句中的with和but怎么连在一起用呢

求问这个题，麻烦老师简明扼要解答一下 谢谢～

请问老师 如果是the Audubon society and other conversation groups发出的动作，为什么是concerned 不是concerning？画线部分是在句中是什么成分呢

DS. Is the integer n a multiple of 140? 1. N is multiple of 10. 2. N is mutual old of 14. @May老师 这到底在数学基础课里 请问题目里说integer 那么integer 也可以有负数 所以 E的答案 这样理解可以吗。