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？

因为X和Y都是正整数，则只会发生两种情况，（X，Y）——（5，2）和（8，1）所以条件一说了X<8 则只会出现（5，2）的唯一情况，成立！条件二说Y>1 则也只能确定（5，2）的唯一情况，也成立呀！我选的D，就是一直找不出我的思维漏洞在哪，求解！

老师，听了OG精讲课程，老师是按照每个truck里面装三个shipments来解答的，但在这道题中并没有说到每个truck里装三个shipment，所以我觉得两个条件分别都不能，但合起来可以解答题目问题。请问我的思路有什么问题吗？

这题考点是so as to吗，为何这题E选项不能理解为to convert和for establishing平行呢

请问培月老师，看到选项我直接把DE排除了，因为airline被期望增加。。。这个语义很奇怪，应该是希望航空公司主动希望通过购买飞机来增加增加呀。所以在ABC里选了一个相对好的，请问这里的语义逻辑怎么考虑啊？

老师 428题我能选出来B（根据原文has led to...)但是在当时做题时我同时在纠结E选项。因为我不确定文中是在说说服还是在说需求。麻烦请郭培月老师解答一下～

我知道A和B错了，但是有个疑惑，““逗号”+非谓语”，所以A和B这里的prevented难道不是修饰主句的主语sound吗？为什么在这里用于修饰distances了呢。是老师说错了，还是我记错了？

C和E的排除中，老师给出的排除方法是在没有硬伤的情况下，主动优于被动，所以选择C选项。但是我当时的思路是，C当中的stationary在that的从句当中，只修饰到了troughts，而E当中的stationary则同时修饰crests和 troughts，在不知道troughts 和 crests是什么意思的情况下，我认为同时修饰两个要比单独修饰troughts好。就像以前那道uncontrolled和that was controlled那道题。

CDE排除的过程中，我的思路是who怎么能够就近修饰law firms呢，所以就选择了D，我也确实看到yet了，但是我认为可以做副词可以放过。请问我的思路有什么问题吗？

请问老师，这题条件二也推不出啊！条件二还有可能a大于1，这时候就不能确定x大于0了，所以是否答案应该选E？

最后留了ADE 觉得now部分应该作为结果伴随，排除A，在DE中选，因为about离knowledge越近越好，选了E 我想问问老师，1.这种ADE最后只有结构上的不同时，是由于句意重心导致选A的吗，着重强调现在有conclusion而非过去的研究；2.DE之间的对比，E把over 20年放中间来使得about。。离knowledge近是比D更好的吗。