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？

这一题，主要区别在于by trying to与in trying to，为何in trying to好与 by呢？ 还有一个区别是划线最后的have had to与have themselves to之间的区别，为何这里不能用have themselves to呢？尤其是在划线前面已经出现了have themselves to的情况下？

没思路，不知道结合条件一及条件二如何得出X1的值...脑子不好使！

只能做到50的阶乘，乘以2的50次方，再加1 的结果 但是后面怎么思考就不清楚了，遇到这种题该如何去做，有什么直接的方法吗？

请May老师帮忙梳理一下这个题怎么用A排列或者C组合的方法算出答案，我每次遇到这种题似乎都有点毛病，不知道应该用A还是C还是结合...

条件一不是已经表明P是C的数量的两倍吗？而原文条件也说明了P或者C其中任意一个都可能为2/3的总量，而条件一表明P=2C 则总份额就是3C。C/（P+C）=1/3，可以得出答案啊，为什么不能选？

这题我认为主要考点在if与when的连用上以及consider后面接to be或者直接接noun。如果在BC选项it无指代可以排除，ADE三个选项中为何E是最优选项呢？这里情形我认为if和when都呢说得通，而且consider后面接noun或者to be在语法上没有问题。

这题正确选项E为什么which后面没有动词而是接的不定式形式，如果这样which后面就不是完整的句子了啊？

How many positive prime numbers are less than integer n? a) 14<n<20。 b) 13<n<17

这一题C，D两个选项中明显有一点不同就是一个用了but many scientist，一个用了and mant scientist. 从句意来看的话，这句话说了A提出了一个观点，但是很多科学家怀疑，然后转折P这个人之后测出来了。虽然D选项中P做的事情用过去时优于C选项中P用完成时，但我认为C选项连词用的比D好，为什么这题D选项优于C选项？