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！

@Tina老师，老师，这道题帮忙讲一下b和c选项呗。主要区别在谓语单复数和后面的to provide 还是providing。主语是两个不可数名词and并列，谓语要用复数么？

@陆旭老师 我想问一下 这里面的数字7是哪里来的呀？我想了一下排除0和它本身应该还有8个呀，不是很明白。

@陆旭老师 为什么这道题选b呀？我把（1）代进去能求出答案，把（2）代入则x=5与题目要求不符，求讲解。谢谢

@陆旭老师 这道题思路是什么呀？应该怎么做呢？

这道数学题 我想问问数学老师为什么我的两个方法答案都不对 首先 我理解这道题是问事件M或者R只发生一个的概率 我的第一个方法就是用M发生*R不发生+M不发生*R发生 这样哪里出错了 需要怎么改呢？ 我的第二个方法是用总体减去M和R同时发生的概率再减去M和R都不发生的概率，这里哪里出错了 要怎么改呢？ 谢谢老师的回答！

@英吉老师 我想问一下这道题A选项错在了哪里，算是犯了什么错误？

@英吉老师 这一道题里的c选项还是不是很明白哪里错了，请问这句话要是怎么改就算对了呢？

@徐小梅老师，徐老师您好，第4)题，我也看到了“至少2人”这个字眼，也是按照至少2人来算的。但我是这么理解的：原来男女共有12个人，先从5个女生中取2个人，保证了至少有两个女生，所以是C5^2; 接着，再让剩下的3个女生和7个男生合并，共10人，取3个人（此时不论男女都可以），是C10^3。然后合起来就是C5^2*C10^3。

为什么4）不能直接用C5^2 *C10^3?先从5个女生中选2人，再从剩下的10人中选3。这样我算出来的是1200。但是按照图片上老师的方法算的是596。很疑惑，求老师解答一下，谢谢！

为什么分子是5 就一定有一个分母是2的三次方有一个分子是1呢？