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！

老师请问这个问题如何解答

请Tina老师讲解。这个题目问法第一次遇到，说下面哪个不是削弱。这种问法相当于在问哪个是支持或者无关吗？做题时觉得AB都是与原文逻辑无关选项。CDE都在解释一个城市与另一个相比，心脏相关手术的成本因素不同，感觉都与原文相关，但是也不是削弱。这个题目感觉摸不着方向

请王文静老师解答。我理的逻辑链：因为热的地方容易缺水，且全球变暖让温度更高，所以肾结石病会增加。我选的E，说天气热的地方结石病多，冷的地方少。A选项给我感觉是因果倒置，病多的地方，天气热，反了。请老师讲解这个题的正确解题思路，并且指出我的错误在哪，如何避免

C选项的It为什么是指代不清呀

金老师好，当时看B觉得to conquer 的发起者是登山者，不应是hazards，但是根据including觉得是hazards包括这几个事，E从语法上成了amateur including了，这个Ving找动作发起者的规则这里不适用吗？

请老师讲一下思路

请老师讲下第七题思路。我的理解是条件1可以判断，想要成立则xy的个位数应该是5或者0，这样次方之后依然是5或者0，即xy的个位应该相等，所以答案是No。老师，我是错误理解题意了吗？

徐老师讲下第六题，是用捆绑法吗？做这种题特别没有思路，怎么办？

求问解题思路

请问这两题的解题思路