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！

请数学老师解答 谢谢老师

老师，我选的是D选项，因为我认为前后表达的语意上没有因果关系，所以没有必要用A那种形式，doubling作结果状语。D选项就是一种对前面增长多少的修饰，感觉比较合理，希望老师能够完整解答一下这道题的解题思路和步骤，谢谢老师。

在AC两个选项中间纠结了很久，因为这两个选项只有时间状语语序上的区别，最后觉得C把时间状语放在前面表意比较清楚一点，请老师纠正一下我的错误，再讲讲这道题的解题思路，谢谢！

请数学老师解答下 为什么选a 谢谢老师

我的思路是这样的:看到A选项有because 和so就给排除了，B选项句子结构太碎了，而且觉得好像larger than和farther than是并列的不能一个当做修饰一个重点说，C选项句子结构不完整，E选项缺少主句。D选项的句子前面成分可以看成是sun的修饰成分，觉得还是比其他选项优秀的，就选了D。请老师纠正一下我的错误并解答一下这道题的解题思路。谢谢！*^_^*

这道题我就没看懂句义，错选了B,认为原句想表达的句义是:就像.....一样。请老师完整解答一下这道题的解题思路，谢谢老师。

麻烦老师给我解答一下，刚才是我选择B答案纠结了一下，就是顺着读下去that are inseparable很容易理解成修饰social phenomena 主谓不一致，就是that 从句是可以跳跃修饰到emotions 上的吗？这个部分不是很清晰。

请数学老师解答

请数学老师解答，谢谢老师

请老师给我讲解下这一题，我自己是采取带值的方法，感觉这样子不是很合理。