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！

老师我还是想借着这道题问您论证方法，课上您说必须高度概括且逻辑严密，那我在描述树的数量和报纸供给的问题的时候，我可不可以说：文章没有adress树的数量是否能持续供给足够的纸张，因为没有support说明树的数量是否足够能为当年提供5m份的报纸，如果可以…是否为未来继续提供

请问王文静老师 有两个问题1，上课您说因为是修饰need动词的所以不能在名词间做比较。那是不是可以理解为如果是比较修饰动词的就不能省略句子成分？2，b和e选项中的it很奇怪 这个有语法错误吗？这种从句中再提到主语可以直接用代词吗？还是得用that？

求教金老师～

老师我想问一下newspaper这道题，我的逻辑提取是：作者认为这家报社有自己的树 从而 可以保持供应新的报纸，所以回收旧报纸这个事是不必要的。我找的问题是forests的数量是否有可以消耗5m，如果有是否能够能够保证树的数量每年甚至每天提供报纸。此外我找不出其他问题了。

How many 3-letter codes can be formed by choosing, without replacement, 3 letters from the word “Banana”?想请问陆旭老师这道题用box method怎么解？

20og 741题，答案是A选项，想问一下B选项。希望张慧雯老师解答一下 我的理解在图二（字太多了140字放不下）

为什么不能选b选项呢？感觉b的结构更好一些而且后面加上he也没有问题：有七本书-4本文章和三本诗歌

请徐老师讲解一下这道题，谢谢！我算不出来选项里有的数不知道式子哪里列错了

我这道题n和k代了两个数进去但算出来五个选项没一个是和题目里的式子相等的……求教老师！谢谢！

老师这道题难道不是100减去2的倍数49个，3的倍数33个，再加上6的倍数16个最后得34个吗？求解答！谢谢！