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！

因为X和Y都是正整数，则只会发生两种情况，（X，Y）——（5，2）和（8，1）所以条件一说了X<8 则只会出现（5，2）的唯一情况，成立！条件二说Y>1 则也只能确定（5，2）的唯一情况，也成立呀！我选的D，就是一直找不出我的思维漏洞在哪，求解！

老师，听了OG精讲课程，老师是按照每个truck里面装三个shipments来解答的，但在这道题中并没有说到每个truck里装三个shipment，所以我觉得两个条件分别都不能，但合起来可以解答题目问题。请问我的思路有什么问题吗？

这题考点是so as to吗，为何这题E选项不能理解为to convert和for establishing平行呢

请问培月老师，看到选项我直接把DE排除了，因为airline被期望增加。。。这个语义很奇怪，应该是希望航空公司主动希望通过购买飞机来增加增加呀。所以在ABC里选了一个相对好的，请问这里的语义逻辑怎么考虑啊？

老师 428题我能选出来B（根据原文has led to...)但是在当时做题时我同时在纠结E选项。因为我不确定文中是在说说服还是在说需求。麻烦请郭培月老师解答一下～

我知道A和B错了，但是有个疑惑，““逗号”+非谓语”，所以A和B这里的prevented难道不是修饰主句的主语sound吗？为什么在这里用于修饰distances了呢。是老师说错了，还是我记错了？

C和E的排除中，老师给出的排除方法是在没有硬伤的情况下，主动优于被动，所以选择C选项。但是我当时的思路是，C当中的stationary在that的从句当中，只修饰到了troughts，而E当中的stationary则同时修饰crests和 troughts，在不知道troughts 和 crests是什么意思的情况下，我认为同时修饰两个要比单独修饰troughts好。就像以前那道uncontrolled和that was controlled那道题。

CDE排除的过程中，我的思路是who怎么能够就近修饰law firms呢，所以就选择了D，我也确实看到yet了，但是我认为可以做副词可以放过。请问我的思路有什么问题吗？

请问老师，这题条件二也推不出啊！条件二还有可能a大于1，这时候就不能确定x大于0了，所以是否答案应该选E？

最后留了ADE 觉得now部分应该作为结果伴随，排除A，在DE中选，因为about离knowledge越近越好，选了E 我想问问老师，1.这种ADE最后只有结构上的不同时，是由于句意重心导致选A的吗，着重强调现在有conclusion而非过去的研究；2.DE之间的对比，E把over 20年放中间来使得about。。离knowledge近是比D更好的吗。