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

请数学老师解答，谢谢

请数学老师解答 谢谢

请数学老师解答 谢谢

一家餐厅有A B两个list的side dishes，两个list都不重样，给出一共有18种搭配方式，问B list里有几个菜 条件1：AB一共有11个菜 条件2：A有2个菜 请数学老师解答 谢谢老师

一个圆内接长方形，问长方形周长是多少？ 条件1：圆半径为2； 条件2：长方形的一条边是2 请数学老师讲解，谢谢老师

请问下金老师，先通过主谓一致排除a，通过in doing sth “在哪方面干什么”意思不对排除ce，剩下bd怎么选择呢？感觉时态没法做选择，前面一个用using 一个用by the use of …使用过动词优于名词来最后选择b吗？

想请问Tina老师，这个题通过后面画线部分比较选项可以排出ad，cwith结构修饰主句主谓关系不恰当排除c，同位语be中summarize前面那群borrowers更好，但是be比较，我觉得e更好，因为that感觉又是引导一个如records这个名词的同位语解释说明什么样的一个热cords，但是答案选b，该怎么权衡呢？

请老师完整解答一下这道题解题思路，我选的A，认为后面是一个介词短语修饰语。

王文静老师你好，就这道题目，我特地查了字典，with可以表示一件事情的factor和这件事情的关系的，换句话说，C选项我读到with，我第一反应就是自动就理解为后面的两个条件（factor）是导致output tripled的原因，所以认为这句话即处理了因果关系也表达了两个factor之前的并列关系。麻烦老师指出我的语法理解问题