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？

@Tina老师，老师，这道题帮忙讲一下b和c选项呗。主要区别在谓语单复数和后面的to provide 还是providing。主语是两个不可数名词and并列，谓语要用复数么？

@陆旭老师 我想问一下 这里面的数字7是哪里来的呀？我想了一下排除0和它本身应该还有8个呀，不是很明白。

@陆旭老师 为什么这道题选b呀？我把（1）代进去能求出答案，把（2）代入则x=5与题目要求不符，求讲解。谢谢

@陆旭老师 这道题思路是什么呀？应该怎么做呢？

这道数学题 我想问问数学老师为什么我的两个方法答案都不对 首先 我理解这道题是问事件M或者R只发生一个的概率 我的第一个方法就是用M发生*R不发生+M不发生*R发生 这样哪里出错了 需要怎么改呢？ 我的第二个方法是用总体减去M和R同时发生的概率再减去M和R都不发生的概率，这里哪里出错了 要怎么改呢？ 谢谢老师的回答！

@英吉老师 我想问一下这道题A选项错在了哪里，算是犯了什么错误？

@英吉老师 这一道题里的c选项还是不是很明白哪里错了，请问这句话要是怎么改就算对了呢？

@徐小梅老师，徐老师您好，第4)题，我也看到了“至少2人”这个字眼，也是按照至少2人来算的。但我是这么理解的：原来男女共有12个人，先从5个女生中取2个人，保证了至少有两个女生，所以是C5^2; 接着，再让剩下的3个女生和7个男生合并，共10人，取3个人（此时不论男女都可以），是C10^3。然后合起来就是C5^2*C10^3。

为什么4）不能直接用C5^2 *C10^3?先从5个女生中选2人，再从剩下的10人中选3。这样我算出来的是1200。但是按照图片上老师的方法算的是596。很疑惑，求老师解答一下，谢谢！

为什么分子是5 就一定有一个分母是2的三次方有一个分子是1呢？