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！

请问当遇到这种完全看不懂不明白逻辑关系的题怎么办？可以帮忙分析一下这篇文章吗

011我是把去银行放进了第一个、第二个、第三个然后分别去算它的可能性，我算出来是10种诶，不太懂为什么答案是12种

老师这个题我不知道为啥每个人扔硬币的组合是2^3...我觉得应该是2*3=6种。然后它里面说P扔硬币的结果没有和任何一个人相同有8*7*7种我也不是很明白。。?

041我没看懂答案，为什么条件2可以确定b一定是整数呀

请金老师帮忙回答下 七龙珠E卷 34 考点： 并列，时态 我自己选的A， 理由：划线外are often dragged under and drowned的 主语that指的就是seabirds， 语义，并列都符合，虽然用的是encountered但是感觉可以接受 给出的答案C，说长线 devastating 海鸟 are often dragged and drowned. 感觉从修饰结构能接受，但是句意不是很理解

请金老师帮忙回答，七龙珠E卷的 32题 考点： 修饰，分号与逗号 读完句子直间排除了BCD， 保留了A，E,做题时没有注意到分号， 是否因为it appears darker是有完整主谓，E不能直接逗号接从而排除

七龙珠E卷的16题 请金老师帮忙解答： 可以看出考点：修饰，指代，时态 根据副词修饰形容词排除了AB， CDE选项，我能看出考点，但是缺选不对答案，比如我知道考点是指代，但是我无法判断percentage of it这个加上到底好不好， 再比如我能注意到 estimated that, 会认为需要用将来式，但是做题的时候感觉读C更顺，而选择C 实际做题的时候，应该怎么结合看出来的考点提高正确率呢？

请问什么时候用从句，什么时候用svo+doing呢？

请问"and consequently"的意思和作用与“and thus" 或“and also"是一样的嘛

since Robert boyle是什么意思怎么感觉怪怪的？所以这道题就是关注语义形式并列而不是看功能并列嘛？还有就是and also到底可不可以用？