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？

麻烦金老师给我解答一下，我的思路是:基于“数字12和字母AB有特殊含义，公司往往会选择 697 483 这样的数字”这样的语意，有个because ，因为什么所以什么会更顺畅一点，所以我先考虑了BC，B我排除的理由是THEY。。哪怕忽略代词指代不明的问题（因为后面紧跟conpanies 了），也有表达啰嗦的问题。错选了B，是因为having connotation这个部分只是修饰了letters吗？然后E答案排除的理由是them多余，they 指代不明，it 的单复数问题，就算这里要用一个代词 根据前面的have也应该用一个复数形式的代词。然后A和D我不是那么清晰，A这个with要怎么理解，”公司这样做，是伴随着这样一个意识“好像也说得过去。然后D答案里面这个aware 我是理解成一个名词的 AWARE of 。。of。。无非就是想说明它是个什么要的意识，然后后面接了一个完整的句子，我起初排除它的原因是觉得两者之间少了点东西搭建逻辑关系

麻烦金老师帮我解答一下，我的思路是；A主要错在IT的单复数问题上，藏红花是复数的形式。B不是很清晰，我一直迷惑一个点就是这个being，做为助动词它主要是用来帮助表达正在被这个语意吗？还有been，对比C答案，如果我想表达之后被捣碎这个语意是不是得用after being pound ？就是藏红花发不出pound这个动作 只能被捣碎，所以才排除B的？ 然后E答案和 就是代词单复数问题

麻烦金老师帮我解答一下，我的思路是：A 得麻烦老师给我讲下这个whose的用法，就是在我固有的知识体系里它常用于疑问句，然后根据单词本身的意思，谁的，用在这里自我感觉也不太好。还有迷惑的一个点是 先忽略这个whose，这里的语意主要是想说明一下这个clans是什么样的地方，clasns 主语 谓语是access water后面是修饰语，总觉得缺个that ，还是说可以省略的？就是我理解的语意是”这个部落接近水，这个水很少受到限制“ C 不是很清晰，DE主要错在less不能修饰可数名词。

麻烦金老师帮我解答一下，根据dioxins判断为可数名词判处ABC，much修饰不可数名词。关于这句话我的理解是这个不可控且让南方的美国人暴露于其中的D的来源是。。。。然后DE这种结构我不熟悉，所以不好做出判断，麻烦老师给我讲解一下，特别是关于介词＋which这种结构不是很清楚

王文静老师你好，请问这道题目D为什么是错的？我一直记得的idiom是prevent from。这道题最明显错误点是possible和possibly吗？谢谢！

请郭老师解答下 谢谢

请郭老师解答下 谢谢

请郭老师解答下 谢谢

请郭老师解答一下下谢谢

老师你好，这道题目我选了D，因为感觉读起来比较顺口。看了正确选项以后，我发现有两处不同，1是tense上的不同，我想起来老外的辅导课程有提过GMAT不考have been这个时态，那是不是考试的时候包含havebeen的直接eliminate？ 2是yet discovered 修饰的对象不同，原文的意思是evidence yet discovered，D当中修饰对象有错误所以改变了句意所以是错的？我不知道我理解的对不对，求老师指教