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！

GMAT数学（博智教材）第62页：If X is equal to the sum of the even integers from 40 to 60, inclusive, and y is the number of even integers from 40 to 60, inclusive, what is the value of x+y? X=40+42+44......60=550 Y=(60-40)/2+1=11, 答案应该是561，为什么书后面的答案显示是560？

数学书61页36题，一个男的卖每条7块的领带和每件14元的衬衫。如果他总共卖了10件，110元，求卖了几条领带？ 我得小数，选项里没有。

DS：5个数中 median 小于 average ；另外7个数也median 小于 average，然后这12个数没有重复的，12个数放在一个数集里面，问是不是median 小于average？ 条件1：7个的average 小于 5个的average 条件2：7个的median 小于 5个的 median

DS：一个三位数xyz是9的倍数，问x+y+z=9？ 条件1：x+y+z<15 条件2：x+y+z>8

question

这种ds题目里面有比例关系的我特别弱，老师能帮我梳理一下这种题拿到药怎么入手吗

老师这个题目帮我讲解一下，机经答案我看了还是不明白。

这个题目机经写的特别复杂，老师能帮我讲一下吗

老师，能帮我梳理一下这个题目吗

题目：of the 200 students at college T majoring in one or more of the sciences, 130 are majoring in chemistry and 150 majoring in biology. If at least 30 of the students are not majoring in either chemistry or biology, then the number students majoring in both biology and chemistry could be any number from a) 20 to 50 b) 40 to 70 c) 50 to 130 d) 110 to 130 e) 110 to 150 问题：这道题能理解到是用集合的知识点，但是无论怎么做都无法突破，得到最后结果。还请老师讲解。谢谢