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？

想请问下May老师，这道题怎么做出答案C？

请陆老师回答一下这一题为什么选B。我选了E。

请陆老师回答一下。这一题我错选了B。取yes，就是收入来自于commuter的是有季节性波动的。意思不就是旅游旺季，人多拥挤，commuter就会到港口来坐ferry，旅游淡季，人少，commuter就还是toll road不会来港口，支持原文；取no，就是没有季节性波动，说明无论是旅游旺季还是淡季，拥不拥挤，搭乘不搭乘ferry都不会影响commuter来不来这里吃饭，驳斥原文。 而C选项说的是港口吸不吸引tourist，但是原文argument说的是通过将commuter直接带到港口来增加收入，这和tourist有什么关系呢？感谢老师解答。

请陆老师回答一下。这一题我选了A，为什么正确答案是E。我首先判断第一句话是pre-evidence，第二句话是counter argument，第三句话的黑体字是conclusion，后半句是premise。 我觉得因为第一个黑体字是“all automobile dealers…”也是属于数据的，第二句话反驳了critics的观点。所以选了A。

请慧雯老师回答一下这一题为什么选C，A选项中as也有因为的意思 ，麻烦您分析一下其他选项。感谢解答！

请慧雯老师回答一下这一题为什么选B，我选了D。为什么需要用完成时态和被动形式以及为啥要加一个since呢？感谢解答！

请张慧雯老师回答一下这篇阅读的两题。 第一题，我定位到第二段（因为整个就是the first explanation”）。但是后面看到选项BCD好像还要定位到第四段“in 1840, about… was rough the same”这两个地方。但是我不知道精准定位是在哪里。然后还是不太懂这篇文章的意思，以及这一题为什么选C。 第二题，看到题干就觉得好难定位，通篇好像都要读，没办法快速根据题干来定位，结果还错选了A。请老师解答一下这一题的突破点以及为啥选D。

请王文静老师回答一下。请问一下这一题为什么选B。我选了E是因为前面说科学家猜测黄蜂被这种气味所吸引，但是后面说in this study，只有grassy odors释放出来了，说明这种气味肯定与grassy odors这种气味不一样。而B说这种气味没有grassy scent，但是原文又说科学家猜测黄蜂是被an odor，reminiscent of cut grass，that is released as the catepillar feeds，意思不就是这种气味类似于cut grass吗？那为什么还会选B。

请张慧雯老师回答一下。这一题为什么不选D，形容词修饰的动词一般不是系动词吗？为啥这一题会选E。感谢回答！

请陆旭老师回答一下。图片中的这一题为什么不可以选C，我的理解是这个研究是30年前做的，所以不适用于当今的情况，不具备说服力。