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？

请问数学老师 条件2为什么成立 谢谢老师

老师您好，这道阅读理解不会做，用定位的方法读了原文也没太懂为什么选D

文章的最后一句话回答了这个问题，也就是C选项，我不懂为什么正确答案是B

ken老师你好，这道题目我的思路是设97、98、99依次为a、b、c，根据题目得出b=C+y; b=a+x。条件1）x>y，可以得出a<c。 第二个条件不太懂。而且这道题目的开始的的less、 more in 1999，这些术语我转化成公式就浪费了半个小时，想问老师有没有更高效的解决办法？

请数学老师讲解下思路

麻烦老师给我讲解一下这一题，通过The body…was that of the man ，身体是那个男人的一部分，而不是身体是那个男人。这个点排除ABC. DE关于时态部分不是很清晰

请数学老师解答下第三个为什么不行

请数学老师帮我解答下，再讲下怎么画图 谢谢老师

麻烦老师给我辨析一下图1和图2，关于图1那题当时选错之后机构老师给我解答的是40 to 44 million years 是一个时间区间，不能用estimate at 因为 at 有精确到某个点的意味。那么图2的正确答案是不是因为3.47 billion years 是一个精确的年份所以要用 at 。。

麻烦老师给我解答一下这题，这题BUT后面主要想表达的核心语意是 家庭用电少于百分之一和家里面的电仍然是由蜡烛提供。我觉得B 顺着读下去也能表达这个语意，就是 我觉得AB 都能表达这个语意，关于两者的差异我不是很清晰 麻烦老师帮我辨析一下