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！

请教may老师这道题的思路

老师，逻辑200题这个题，我觉得B是抬扛呀，原文说这个有关系，这个B选项说没关系，这不也是抬扛的一种吗。我选的A，是因为我觉得我当时设想的答案可以就是cliche在这个环境中是没啥作用的，不会影响elect的最终成功与否，这个A选项我觉得就是表达了我这个意思

老师，这是逻辑200题里面的，您在视频课里讲到的一点，这个less cooperative得有比较，也就是看钱和不看钱的得有比较，原文只有看钱的，没说不看钱的，我非常同意，我当时也是这么想的，所以选择了C

例题9， 间接法-4C1* 6C1 是指4对夫妻中的一对，是二个人. 6C1指6人中的1人， 一对夫妻* 1人，单位数量不对，可以相乘？

例17，如何知道剩下6人不符合电脑系，剩下8人不符合数学系？如何知道是哪些人不符合2个部门？假如题目写if none of the rest of candidates 会表意精确些？

例16， 假如数字变大，选出50本，不可能手算的，我的解题思路看右边， 4C1*6C1* 8C3， 为什么不能这么算？

例题16, 因为要求value of K. 1) 怎么变成条件到结论的推导, sufficient or insufficient? 2) 单看条件2，7平方不是K因子. 怎么会条件2成立？ 因为有6 factors.

例题17 好不清楚的点是 2n= a*b*c*d, 1)为什么要假设质因数(prime factor)里面是否有2.因为本来就是2n，而且条件1提到4个不同的质因数. 2)题目是求确切值？还是说sufficient or insufficient ? 问how many

请问这道题该怎么判断

请问这道题D选项和E选项应该怎么判断？