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！

数学：请问老师这道排列组合怎么解 感觉好复杂

老师，请问这道题思路是什么？

老师，求该题解题思路

DS：说一个女生有一些 tax deductible 其中捐给 b 让她少交了 210 的税，问什么忘记 了求补充，好像是她总收入是多少？ 条件 1：给了税率是 28% 条件 2：给了可税工资（income-deductible）是个五位数。 income*0.28-（income-deductible）*0.28=210 构筑纠结很久 因为题里面说捐给 b 只是 deductible 其中一项，还有其他未知，所以最 后选了 e，现在感觉选 c 请问陆老师，应该选什么？谢谢！

DS：n 是三个不同质数的积，这些质数都在 1-15 之间，问 n 是否＜700？ 其中一个条件是 n 与 70 没有公约数 【补充】 DS：x,y,z 是三个质数，xyz<700？ 条件 1：三个数不大于 14 条件 2：三个数里面有 70 的因数 s 轩辕十四 12/20 【122-补充】 DS：三个整数，问他们的积和一个常数的关系 条件 1：都是小于 15 的质数 条件 2：是 30 的 factor 构筑：这个好像也是个变体吧，好迷啊 ggggggbbbbbb bb 12/20 【122-补充】 DS：Integer p: is p>700? 条件 1：p is product of three prime numbers from 1-15 条件 2：p has no common factor with 70 请问陆老师，这道题选什么？谢谢！

DS：2x^2+bx+8=0，只有一个实数根，求那个字母的值？ 条件 1：b<0 条件 2：lxl>5 x的绝对值 请问陆老师，这道题选什么？谢谢

想请教一下陆老师，我觉得这道题应该是用相似三角形做，看了图觉得应该是用角1和角2相等来证明。但是由题干给的条件，我不知道如何得出角1和角2相等

请问老师图里的这道语法比较，不太明白，如何区分到底比较的是什么呢？谢谢

请问May, 我这道题不知道怎样做？谢谢！

请问May老师，请问这题选5 吗？