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？

小郭老师 请归纳 谢谢

请小郭老师帮我归纳 谢谢

想问一下金老师，在句子最后的逗号后面的ing形式的非谓语动词的主语是不是可以是主句的主语，也可以是整个主句，还可以是离它最近的一套完整主谓宾的主语？那碰到题目是要三种情况都考虑一下吗？还有如果是逗号加ing形式的非谓语动词在句子中间的话，是修饰前面还是后面呢，主语又是谁呢？

请金老师讲解

请金老师讲解

请金老师根据这个寂静 看着帮我讲讲点拨一下

请金老师讲解下 c为啥不对

请问金老师 这个为什么是a 两份called for为什么不能并列

请郭老师再帮我简单梳理下，阅读的框架模型：双观点（debate）但观点（新老观点 chanllenge）。。。

请问郭老师 第二段的作用是啥？预估一下