Years before the advent of plate tectonics―the widely accepted theory, developed in the mid-1960's, the holds that the major features of Earth's surface are created by the horizontal motions of Earth's outer shell, or lithosphere―a similar theory was rejected by the geological community. In 1912, Alfred Wegener proposed, in a widely debated theory that came to be called continental drift, that Earth's continents were mobile. To most geologists today, Wegener's The origin of Continents and Oceans appears an impressive and prescient document, containing several of the essential presumptions underlying plate tectonics theory: the horizontal mobility of pieces of Earth's crust; the essential difference between oceanic and continental crust; and a causal connection between horizontal displacements and the formation of mountain chains. Yet despite the considerable overlap between Wegener's concepts and the later widely embraced plate tectonics theory, and despite the fact that continental drift theory presented a possible solution to the problem of the origin of mountains at a time when existing explanations were seriously in doubt, in its day Wegener's theory was rejected by the vast majority of geologists. Most geologists and many historians today believe that Wegener's theory was rejected because of its lack of an adequate mechanical basis. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, argues that continental drift theory was rejected because it did not explain how continents could move through an apparently solid oceanic floor. However, as Anthony Hallam has pointed out, many scientific phenomena, such as the ice ages, have been accepted before they could be fully explained. The most likely cause for the rejection of continental drift―a cause that has been largely ignored because we consider Wegener's theory to have been validated by the theory of plate tectonics―is the nature of the evidence that was put forward to support it. Most of Wegener's evidence consisted of homologies―similarities of patterns and forms based on direct observations of rocks in the field, supported by the use of hammers, hand lenses, and field notebooks. In contrast, the data supporting plate tectonics were impressively geophysical―instrumental determinations of the physical properties of Earth garnered through the use of seismographs, magnetometers, and computers. 我选了E considerable overlap前面是despite XXX说明这个是个成就，他和后面的反对W的观点的事情是相反的。所以感觉D说用这个词的目的是解释为啥W理论。请老师辨析DE！谢谢！

请唐瑭老师答疑：这道题最后一句划定的范围是hunt和A数量的关系，BCD能够自己排除，A项说人口增加，我觉得人口增加不一定hunt就会增加再影响人口，所以无关，但E项，A在人少的场合被目击的次数多，不就代表A多了是因为那里人少，hunt肯定是人来完成的，人少就少有hunt。

请唐瑭老师答疑： 我的思路是：原文最后一句划定的范围是对于延误来说，天气等不可控因素是一部分，但可控因素是有明显下降的，大致就是延误的因素。可以排除BCE选项，A选项低估airline error的占比，而D项，不可控因素在上升，为什么A错误而D正确呢？谢谢老师！

请唐瑭老师答疑：请唐老师用他的思路讲一下这道题。谢谢老师！

请唐瑭老师答疑：还不太能够理解为什么选D选项，能讲下这道题嘛，想知道是不是从一开始思路就错了。谢谢老师！

请唐瑭老师答疑：这个题可以不用看原文，直接在题干中总结范围：suncrop追求less profit，C项中cattle ranching高税的profits会产生比其他工业的profits更高，而E项中，开展RT的成本要比开展CR的成本高，对profit来说中间还有一步推理

请徐小梅老师答疑：

1.问题1 一个数的余数问题额，怎么看他除以248395的余数他的余数是与他各个位数上的和加起来除以这几个数的余数相等么？ 2.在质因数分解中，为什么每个分解出的质数的幂+1相乘等于他质数的个数，能解释一下原理吗？

没有找到这个细节题在哪里，好像没有怎么理解文章的意思。文章是在讲biologist和historian的explanation的方式以及biologist是以historian explaination为基础，然后发现了一些漏洞吗？ 希望张老师回答一下🥺

请教一下小梅老师，在用间接法时 所有情况-相邻捆绑=两个I没有挨在一起的情况 我的笔记上写的所有情况的表达式是C25A33 但现在自己看不懂了，希望老师讲下为什么

这题E选项是对的，但consumers主语后面谓语动词为什么是一般现在时，整个句子不是过去式么？