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！

请问这题中“explore”的动发者为什么是“Lina”呢？我在读A选项时总觉得选项中explore的动发者是“A group of films” 因为觉得explore前面的主体是“A group of films”, 而 in 1970 和 Lina 都是修饰films的。

@英吉 请问这题E选项错在哪里呢？能麻烦您解释一下吗？谢谢！

老师您好，实在是有点看不懂这道题的问题到底要我算什么，求解，谢谢！

王文静老师，我是刚刚在上海结束了封闭班的学生，周梦瑶，^_^^_^不知道您还记不记得我，我准备在9.1日参加考试，我做了一个大致的复习计划，但是还不清楚，是否正确，或者有没有什么疏漏的地方，还想请您帮忙看一下，帮我修改斧正一下，非常感谢老师^_^^_^^_^

老师您好，我看了您明星课上给的题目答案过程，但是还是不太清楚自己的过程哪里出错了。能麻烦您解释一下吗？谢谢！ （我用紫色笔框出了我的解题过程）

请问老师，原文题目当中【即A选项】中estimates后面的and为什么前面没有逗号呢？这样没有逗号不就是跟从句后面surpassed并列了吗？可本应该是跟主句谓语并列呀？

请问一下老师此题中的选项B中的’ which were’的which不应该是要遵照定语从句中就近原则，来指代Richard Nixon吗？【我清楚人应该用whom来指代】可是为什么这里没有遵照就近原则呢？

老师您好，我听了您的基础课解释的为什么分子只能有一个C[1,60]，但是还是不太理解。在第一个班（e.g. senior）sibling里选一个是C[1,60]，另一个班就是C[1,1] 而不是C[1,60]呢？ 我不懂的点在于 题目说是两次选取都是random的，也就是在图中大写A里选出姐姐，不代表一定会在小写a 里选中她对应的妹妹呀？ 这里我比较糊，能麻烦老师您解释一下吗？谢谢！

老师，数学基础课这题 在可重复使用letter时，为什么在two letter code时不用✖️A[2,2]，在three letter code时 不用✖️A[3,3]呢？ 我是知道 当需要“选，拿，取”时，我们要用C，；但是我对具体什么时候需要用到A 还是有些模糊。能不能麻烦老师您解释一下我们什么时候会用到A？特别是在我们已经用到C后，什么时候需要在C基础上 再✖️A（e.g. C[3,26]✖️A[3,3]）？ 谢谢！

老师，能麻烦您解释一下您在数学基础课上说的 “因为k+7 可以整除3，所以整个式子可整除3” 的原因是什么吗？这里为什么可以直接判断出 k（k+7）可以被2整除呢？谢谢！