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！

求解

请问这道题为什么选B呀？

请问余数可以不是整数嘛？这道题怎么解释？

老师这个问题还没有解答 As引导的句子问题： 第一个句子as...as...是表示链接的内容程度一样吗，翻译起来感觉不太顺。the circumstances翻译成了这些规律和原则，哪些规律和原则？指代的是什么？此外with引导的是伴随状语？那as...as...作什么成分呢 第二个句子insofar查了是adv.在这个范围；到这个程度的意思。insofar as引导的是什么？insofar as the literature analysis is concerned怎么理解呢 第三个句子，四个as...第一个as意思是作为,第二个as意思也是作为？generally accepted as a race in any given region of ethnic competition怎么理解？第三和第四个as,表示和。。。一样，并列的是哪两个部分，什么和什么一样呢，后面the Chinese in California and the Jew in medieval Europe省略了什么

画线部分不理解。more...than..more后面的of the preindustrial European population比the 2 or 3 percent多？the preindustrial European population是不是应该放在investigate后面比较好

所以这一题c选择creating之所以修饰individual是因为这不是一个svo，+doing的形式所以采取的是就近修饰原则吗？

想问一下金老师，这道题c选择og解释里面说的是修饰individual不是reactions呀，您为啥说是修饰reactions呢

请问怎么从第二段看出来作者的观点是enable to enforce property right不是因为arbitrary 而是因为earlier parents often violated copyright law

我画粉色的这个是一个svo+doing形式吗 还是说它跟在that之后就不算一个完整句

请问什么情况下可以跳着修饰呀？