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？

调查1200人对A B C 的喜好，喜欢A的40%，喜欢B的58%，喜欢C的40%，同时喜欢AB的30%，求喜欢C但不喜欢A B的人

问题：在“数的整除性质小节中”，第一段写到，如果a能被b整除，记作aΙb. 但如果照这么理解的话，为什么在性质3: 如果b、c都能整除a且b和c互质，那么b与c的积能整除a。以上说法化成公式的表示为：bΙa 。但如果根据上面的被整除表达，这里不应该写为aΙb嘛？

G（x）表示x的取整且是小于x的，L（x）表示x取整且是大于x的，问L（x）-G（x）的所有可能值的的集合？ （-1,0） （1,0）等

题目：1993年的元旦是星期五，1994年的元旦是星期几。 问题：在文字解释中提到，问题的实质是求用7去除某一天的天数后所得的余数。然后引出，因为15与365除以7后，余数都是1，所以15与365对于模7同余。但15这个数字是怎么推到出来的呢？

问题：由于以前完全没有学习过“同余”的概念，因此书中的解释完全不明白。还烦请MAY老师帮忙讲解一下。

题目：求143∧89（143的89次方）除以7的余数 问题：（1）如何利用同余的概念推出最后的结果的？ （2） 如果可以不用同余概念，还有什么其他方法可以处理此类题型嘛？

题目：A Printer numbered consecutively the pages of a book, beginning with 1 on the first page. In numbering the pages, he printed a total of 189 digits. How many pages are there in the book? 问题：看了中文翻译并听了管老师的讲解，我都没弄明白这个题目的解题思路。的别是对“a total of 189 digits”的处理。

DS：已知半径为7，求ABR 的周长？ 条件1：∠x=120 度 条件2：△ABR 的面积为(49/9) π 图片附件

题目：If n is a prime number greater than 3, what is the remainder when n的平方is divided by 12? 问题：当管老师解题时，他出了3个方程式，分别是： 1） n=3A+1, n的平方=9A(square)+6A+1 2) n=3A+2, n的平方=9A(square)+12A+4 3) n=2A+1, n的平方=4A(square)+4A+1 我不明白的点是：这3个方程式是怎么推到或者是一看到题目就这么设出来的？

有图。