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

请数学老师解答，谢谢

请数学老师解答 谢谢

请数学老师解答 谢谢

一家餐厅有A B两个list的side dishes，两个list都不重样，给出一共有18种搭配方式，问B list里有几个菜 条件1：AB一共有11个菜 条件2：A有2个菜 请数学老师解答 谢谢老师

一个圆内接长方形，问长方形周长是多少？ 条件1：圆半径为2； 条件2：长方形的一条边是2 请数学老师讲解，谢谢老师

请问下金老师，先通过主谓一致排除a，通过in doing sth “在哪方面干什么”意思不对排除ce，剩下bd怎么选择呢？感觉时态没法做选择，前面一个用using 一个用by the use of …使用过动词优于名词来最后选择b吗？

想请问Tina老师，这个题通过后面画线部分比较选项可以排出ad，cwith结构修饰主句主谓关系不恰当排除c，同位语be中summarize前面那群borrowers更好，但是be比较，我觉得e更好，因为that感觉又是引导一个如records这个名词的同位语解释说明什么样的一个热cords，但是答案选b，该怎么权衡呢？

请老师完整解答一下这道题解题思路，我选的A，认为后面是一个介词短语修饰语。

王文静老师你好，就这道题目，我特地查了字典，with可以表示一件事情的factor和这件事情的关系的，换句话说，C选项我读到with，我第一反应就是自动就理解为后面的两个条件（factor）是导致output tripled的原因，所以认为这句话即处理了因果关系也表达了两个factor之前的并列关系。麻烦老师指出我的语法理解问题