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？

DS：如果x和y是≥0的数，问3^xy次方是多少？ 条件1：5^x=11^y 条件2：3^x=9^y 请问这题答案是B吗？谢谢老师！

不明白这道题的总体积为什么是（x+2）(y+2)(z+2)而不是（x+1）(y+1)(z+1);厚度不是1吗？谢谢！

我觉得这题答案应该是A吧？∵105拆分质因数可得105=3*5*7（3个完全不同的质因数）∴x+y+z=15。怎么会是C呢？？？？

向May提问，我觉得这题情况会分得很复杂，想听下老师的思路？

想向May老师提问。这题我知道条件1单独成立，但对条件2没什么思路，只能想到穷举法，当p等于2*5,3*5,3*5,2*3,2*5,3*5时，m等于2*3,2*3,2*5,5,3,2，然后一个个除发现有的余数是1，有的余数大于1，条件2单独不成立。想问老师这个思路对吗？有没有更加简洁的思路？

不懂此题。已知有A,B,C和D共4个人；问：现在从这四个人中选出3人，是ACD的概率是多少？请详细解释，谢谢老师！

不理解第一个条件均值如何得出关于6倍数的结论，是连续7个数除7余数为5则为6的倍数，所以有一个6的倍数？

不理解第一个条件均值如何得出关于6倍数的结论，是连续7个数除7余数为5则为6的倍数，所以有一个6的倍数？

第8题的思路是以BC为底，从F向BC做垂线，跟BC交点H，FH为三角形FBC的高。然后三角形BFH跟三角形BDC相似，h：30=BF：BD，但是BF长度未知，望老师解答。

第8题的思路是以BC为底，从F向BC做垂线，跟BC交点H，FH为三角形FBC的高。然后三角形BFH跟三角形BDC相似，h：30=BF：BD，但是BF长度未知，望老师解答。