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！

王文静老师，我这道题目选了E，因为读起来感觉：a third of them作为elephants的修饰语，有一个with比较顺口也比较符合一般修饰语的语法，能麻烦您解释一下吗

问王文静老师，结合未画线部分C答案相当于用and并列了两个That从句修饰robe，且句子结构，动词时态也没有什么错误，代词they也有明确的指代，请问老师是哪里有问题？

老师请问一下，A答案为什么错？estimated 用来修饰fragments，A和D的区别就是介词 at 和 to 的区别 固定搭配？查了例句 estimate at 是正确的使用 被估计在 。。几百万年以前这个语意放在此句里 我感觉是合理的。

请问一下老师，关于这道题，我是根据 either ..or..绝对的平行做对的，但是在and并列的两个谓语 date 和 were fashioned的这个部分有点困惑。为什么不是date and are fashioned 或者说 dated and were fashioned。我认为这里是在讲述一个客观事实：这个神像可以追朔到什么时期和由什么制成，应该是用一般现在时。were fashioed 是过去式的被动语态对吧？date and were fashioned感觉也不复合并列的要求。

问MAY老师，两个“项目”的会用TT图解决，请问MAY老师像这种三个“项目”的题应该怎么解决？

问MAY老师 我用TT图解决不了这个问题，麻烦老师帮我看一下是哪里出了问题。

May老师，这是博智模考题里面的一道数学题，不理解呢

May老师你好，这道题的第三小题我的解题思路是插空法，但是做出来答案不对，请老师找找我的问题。因为题目说两端不能有女生，那我就让3个女生插在男生当中，5个男生6个空位，但要去掉一头一尾两个空位，就是C4选3*A33*A55（剩下5个男生随便排），请问老师我的思路上哪里错了？

麻烦老师帮我看看我哪里做错了

阴影区的这句话，中间的那个gives，是跟着前面哪个词的? 是哪个词发出的gives动作? 谢谢