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？

原文说 课堂上课的不及格率低于网络上课的 说明课堂上课的学生成绩更好 根据相关性确定了ad 但是不懂为啥ad方向都和原文是反的 都说网络上课的成绩更好 我还找不出ad之间差别 自己理解题目错了嘛 ？

argument是因为费用大于利润所以广告没有为公司带来长远经济效益 b就是说尽管近期没有体现 但是他们成为royal以后是一个长期的投资 后来肯定是有好处的 d的意思是这个现象是一个自然的发展规律 但是我认为它不能说明这个广告不是没用的

嘻嘻我再问一道数学题！44题我算的x=550，y=11，不明白答案怎么算的c啊，请老师解答，谢谢！

第一题，请问为什么不选A呢，AB是怎么选出B的呢

我选D，正确E 读完5个选项，按逻辑members会比物种更好，剩下DE，觉得差别不大，但D更加直接精炼（感觉正确是E的话和追求效率完全违背了哇，哭）

？？我选C，正确选A AB一组，CDE一组 做错思路：首先看AB开头就有代词their觉得没法指代，内心已经差不多把他俩都排除了，往下看一点，看的比较急，没有彻底清楚句意和结构，就觉得两个逗号了还没有出现主语很奇怪，直接AB全部排除（读是读句意啊啊啊啊，就抓着结构不放是什么鬼，两个逗号是形容词并列修饰。。。）；CDE，对比发现最后都有代词，都会以指代不清，但只有C代词和指代对象相隔最近相对清楚，就选了。（其实看到这里既然都有指代不清为啥不重新看一下AB？？）（问题：代词指代放前面一定就指接下来紧接的名词吗？那么相对代词放在后面还要回头找对应指代，在所有选项都存在代词指代时，放前面是不是总是更好？）（from when…有这种用法吗？）

我选D，正确E AB一组，CDE一组 做错思路：速度的话用介词at 比with 好，CDE中选，对比than前后应该一致，前面既然是速度，后面我认为也应该是名词结构才能并列，所以不应该有is/are（难道说正确选项E是than后省略speeds＋定语连接词which？）

答案是E，面授课记的是A，我选的C。。。啥情况。。。 思路：依靠单复数剩ACE，最后时态差别，去前文找发现都是过去式，排除E，纠结，原文有by所以考虑是不是被动就选了C。

后面应该是完整句子排除C，B指代不清排除，ADE最明显区别就是时态，认为是动作导致activate所以应该是单数，排除D，觉得A比E舒服，错选A。

选了B，正确是 D 读了A觉得SO THAT不对，然后读B觉得逻辑才对（这时其实我应该用这个点去排除就只剩下BD），但我顺着读了，然后排除了C，看到DE都有will，但是原文后面已经有专家正在alarm了，按照句意逻辑我认为不应该还未实行，直接就排除了。