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？

请数学老师解答 谢谢老师

老师，我选的是D选项，因为我认为前后表达的语意上没有因果关系，所以没有必要用A那种形式，doubling作结果状语。D选项就是一种对前面增长多少的修饰，感觉比较合理，希望老师能够完整解答一下这道题的解题思路和步骤，谢谢老师。

在AC两个选项中间纠结了很久，因为这两个选项只有时间状语语序上的区别，最后觉得C把时间状语放在前面表意比较清楚一点，请老师纠正一下我的错误，再讲讲这道题的解题思路，谢谢！

请数学老师解答下 为什么选a 谢谢老师

我的思路是这样的:看到A选项有because 和so就给排除了，B选项句子结构太碎了，而且觉得好像larger than和farther than是并列的不能一个当做修饰一个重点说，C选项句子结构不完整，E选项缺少主句。D选项的句子前面成分可以看成是sun的修饰成分，觉得还是比其他选项优秀的，就选了D。请老师纠正一下我的错误并解答一下这道题的解题思路。谢谢！*^_^*

这道题我就没看懂句义，错选了B,认为原句想表达的句义是:就像.....一样。请老师完整解答一下这道题的解题思路，谢谢老师。

麻烦老师给我解答一下，刚才是我选择B答案纠结了一下，就是顺着读下去that are inseparable很容易理解成修饰social phenomena 主谓不一致，就是that 从句是可以跳跃修饰到emotions 上的吗？这个部分不是很清晰。

请数学老师解答

请数学老师解答，谢谢老师

请老师给我讲解下这一题，我自己是采取带值的方法，感觉这样子不是很合理。