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？

想问一下老师这题的定位思路是如何的，大后天就考了。答案是C，还想听一下D的话为什么不能选

想问下老师这题的思路。为什么B选项不对，对于比例是没办法说明坏的多还是少，需要一个说人数一样多来补充证明说motorized确实比non m多。为什么要D

想问下老师这题的思路是怎么的，assumption的题目应该怎么做，之前是老师的方法是说把assumption看成是一个argument的补充原因，好像在这里用不上？有点急

想问下老师这题的思路是怎么样的，快考试了有点急

想让老师理一下这篇阅读的文章结构还有解决下第4题

想问问唐塘老师这题思路是什么样的，我做的时候只get到了预算是由税的2%来的，然后一个公司现在由1%的这个城的雇佣员工组成（不知道对不对），还有想问下这题在考试里大概是什么水平的题目

想问下唐塘老师，这题我没看懂题目的意思，查了意思后说是调和xxxx，也不是很明白，然后我看说c讲了两个不同状态的婴儿，对于牛奶的吸收的不同，跟原文里呈现了两种婴儿的比较比较一样，就选了，这思路对么？答案是c

想请问下唐塘老师这题的思路是什么，感觉一点思路都没有

请王文静老师答疑

想问一下may老师，如果这一题把题干改成 a sequence of 6n conseuctive integers, 那是像这样分析吗。