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？

为什么critique和envisioning不算并列？划线部分做同位语作用，为何不能用起伴随作用的DE？as well as是否既可以用在两者比较又可以用在三者？

请数学老师解答

请问数学老师 条件中 each more than 3 feet from the nearest wall 这个条件有什么用？再说下思路 谢谢老师

请问数学老师 条件2怎么可以快速推算结果

老师 我不太懂什么k一定是4的倍数呢？

ken老师这道题目答案对吗？为什么说两个条件中的方程是同一个方程啊，我算出来不一样，当条件1&2同时存在时，两个方程是有两个交点，应该就是可以判断出（a,b)的值吧？

请问数学老师 这个题如何在短时间内快速得出答案

ken老师 这道题目黄色部分我不太明白，An和n各自代表什么意思？我以为An代表的整数列所有数的合，那n不可能小于100呀，好奇怪

麻烦金老师回答，主要的困惑在于AB两个选项。一个that位置的不同，和will 和 would 的不同。刚开始我的思路是旅客会更多的使用旅行机构这件事是一个预测，没发生的，虚拟语气所以就错选了B.will 和would 的区别是 will 表达的感觉更确定一点吗？

麻烦金老师回答，这题看到DIGGING 这个动作是人发出的 不可能是化石发出的，排除AB ，C 里面的it 指代不是很清楚。对比DE， 这个化石来自那里这个部分的内容比较长所以D 选项是用了一个从句来说明的意思吗？就是关于DE选项的appears 和 APPEAR 这个差一点我不是很清晰，还是说D这个答案的what 这个选项引导的从句直接修饰到bones上，所以胜出？