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！

为什么critique和envisioning不算并列？划线部分做同位语作用，为何不能用起伴随作用的DE？as well as是否既可以用在两者比较又可以用在三者？

请数学老师解答

请问数学老师 条件中 each more than 3 feet from the nearest wall 这个条件有什么用？再说下思路 谢谢老师

请问数学老师 条件2怎么可以快速推算结果

老师 我不太懂什么k一定是4的倍数呢？

ken老师这道题目答案对吗？为什么说两个条件中的方程是同一个方程啊，我算出来不一样，当条件1&2同时存在时，两个方程是有两个交点，应该就是可以判断出（a,b)的值吧？

请问数学老师 这个题如何在短时间内快速得出答案

ken老师 这道题目黄色部分我不太明白，An和n各自代表什么意思？我以为An代表的整数列所有数的合，那n不可能小于100呀，好奇怪

麻烦金老师回答，主要的困惑在于AB两个选项。一个that位置的不同，和will 和 would 的不同。刚开始我的思路是旅客会更多的使用旅行机构这件事是一个预测，没发生的，虚拟语气所以就错选了B.will 和would 的区别是 will 表达的感觉更确定一点吗？

麻烦金老师回答，这题看到DIGGING 这个动作是人发出的 不可能是化石发出的，排除AB ，C 里面的it 指代不是很清楚。对比DE， 这个化石来自那里这个部分的内容比较长所以D 选项是用了一个从句来说明的意思吗？就是关于DE选项的appears 和 APPEAR 这个差一点我不是很清晰，还是说D这个答案的what 这个选项引导的从句直接修饰到bones上，所以胜出？