Over 75 percent of the energy produced in France derives from nuclear power,______
B选项：compared to Germany, which uses just over 33 percent中的"compared to Germany"是【过去分词短语，应就近修饰名词nuclear power】，这在逻辑上是不正确的。真正的对比对象应该是德国和法国。

C选项：whereas nuclear power accounts for just over 33 percent of the energy [produced in Germany]: 正确. 本选项在语法和逻辑上均是正确的。

D选项：whereas just over 33 percent of [the energy] comes from nuclear power in Germany: the energy前的【定冠词the】表示这个energy指代前面出现过的energy，即，生产于法国的核能，这句话的意思变成了“在法国，超过33%的能量来自于德国生产的核能”，失去了比较的意义（和选项(C)不同，该选项中【energy身后有定语produced in Germany】！！）。

首先要看出Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core = If it 【were】 not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core
然后就会知道这是个【虚拟语气/条件状语从句】！

A/B选项：instead a star would have collapsed under its own weight语法有误，虚拟语气句子，主句必须一开头就是主语，而不能是连词、副词，因此instead错误。
D选项：a star 【would】 collapse under its own weight正确

先时性
从句和名词的区别是从句无时间终点而名词有

（as banks have systematically raised their old fees and invented new ones是原因状语，不被over the past few years修饰）
over the past few years必须用现在完成时

of和as均为介词，放在一起导致了语法错误。
opponent：对手，敌对的
看到这种极简题目的时候，尤其是单复数谓语都出现，要考虑从句到底在修饰哪个词语

B中so, 似乎前后是原因/结果的关系，但是原文是2个facts

continue的语意，继续，之前是之后也是，不用再加already，have been强调之前是

72不只是代表8*9*a，还暗含这个a起码是2以上

选项B：措辞有误，不能说during recent times，只能说during five years等。这是因为，【during身后需要连接一个独立而确定的时间段（例如five years）】，而不能连接类似于recent times这样的模糊时间。另外，主句的谓语动词应该用【过去时】，而不能用lead这个一般现在时。

选项D：本选项具有较高的迷惑性。利用图形背景原则，我们需要对比主句和伴随状语在时间轴上的持续时间。在逻辑上，“Inuit人住在igloos中”这个事件的持续时间肯定长于“Inuit人引领了流浪生活的风潮”的持续时间。这是因为，肯定是Inuit人“先”住在igloos中，然后他们才能引领流浪风潮。因此，shelter应该是从属成分（伴随状语），lead是主句。
ron 的解释：
①"Up" is redundant, since "until" already carries this meaning.
②The sentence implies that the Inuit are no longer nomads.
If they were still nomads, the sentence wouldn't say "until recently"; it would say "until now" (or some equivalent). Remember that "recently", albeit not too long ago, is still a time in the past. So, you need the past tense！

P：过去5年中每一年监狱中的犯人人数都增加。但是每一年都是1）法庭立案数没有增加. 2) 定罪数没有增加，题干推断原因是被判有罪的人被判入狱的比例正在上升。问削弱
conviction n. 定罪；确信；证明有罪

C选项：Ten years ago, Barraland reformed its criminal justice system, imposing 【“longer” minimum sentences】 for those crimes for which a prison sentence had long been mandatory. 十年前，Barraland改革了它的刑事司法系统，对那些长期以来被强制判处监禁的罪行实施了较长的最低刑期（审题不仔细！）

审题，题干问的是the【 effect】 of foreign competition on the American manufacturing sector since the 1970's！！！
原文能定位到“the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has generally been overstated”，pressure相当于effect！
而后一句 "while [some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition], many more have been lost simply because of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods." 意思说competition确实造成了一些lost但是大部分的lost和他没关。但不管怎么样它也是众多direct cause之一。压力算是导致失业的一个直接原因，只不过不是主要原因

A选项：本选项的错误来自于in addition to how。副词短语【in addition to只能在身后接名词或名词短语】，例如：
In addition to my weekly wage, I got a lot of tips. （除了每周的薪水外，我还能得到不少小费。）
本选项中的how实际上是一个[从句的省略]（即，how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies），这是不合语法的。另外，in addition to相当于一个附加成分，有不被突出的意思。例如，在刚才的例句中，主要强调的是“我能得到不少小费”，而不强调我每周的工资。本题中我们无从看出how和when应该突出哪个，因此两者应该用并列连词and连接。

B选项：介词短语the determination of how and when没有时间的终止点，只能用ing短语来表达。应改为determining how and when。这点考查了【名词和ing的区别】（用这个知识点来判断）。

C选项：to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and 【when "they" did】.
1. they指代不明
2. did应该为did so (曼哈顿讲的)
to do和for doing都表目的的区别：to do必须是有生命的物体发出的意向，for doing呢，则是无生命的物体本身的用途、功能之类的。
eg. I have a car for driving. & I use a car to drive.
【sth】 provide sth(support&clues) [for doing(determing&classify) sth].主语是东西不是人，所以不能用to do 表示目的，只能用doing 表示用途。

D选项：for determining when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals and how [they were]. 省略有误。省略的原则是，在不引起歧义的情况下，一样部分均应该省略。在本选项中，除了连词when和how的不同，其余部分两句均是相同的，所以they和were均应该省掉。

A are subject（adj. 易遭受……的；有待于……的；受……支配的；受异族统治的；臣服的） to B，A受B的约束/控制/影响
NOT "subjected"！！

ECC通过通电的方法来给大桥除冰，并且电力成本比de-icing成本低。但是建造ECC的成本比传统的水泥成本更高，所以从经济角度考虑没有理由用ECC，问support the highway official's proposal in the face of the taxpayer's objection?
CQ方向应为加强ECC+电方案or削弱普通水泥+salt方案
A选项：The use of de-icing salt causes corrosion of the reinforcing steel in concrete bridge decks and damage to the concrete itself, thereby considerably shortening the useful life of concrete bridges. de-icing salt会造成桥的腐蚀，大大缩减桥的使用寿命，其造成的经济损失更严重，correct，指出了salt方案的一个致命的“否定性副作用”！
D选项：Aside from its potential use for de-icing bridges, ECC might also be an effective means of keeping other concrete structures such as parking garages and airport runways ice free. 仅仅是提出了ECC另外的功能，然而这个功能salt可能也具备同时成本还低，无法反驳taxpayer的观点

C: astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet [will be to]

D: astronomers have developed a scale for rating the likelihood [that] a particular asteroid or comet will

E: astronomers have developed a scale that rates the likelihood [of] a particular asteroid or comet that may

How likely is it NOW that a comet/asteroid WILL STRIKE Earth?
C mentions "how likely a comet/asteroid will be". Nope. The likelihood is something that exists now, not in the future. (That's the definition of "likelihood": How probable does this event seem right now? There's no "future likelihood" here. In the future, the event either happens or doesn't happen.)
D mentions the likelihood (as measured at present) that a comet/asteroid will collide (in the future) with Earth. That makes sense.

明天有50%可能下雨（也有50%可能不下雨）。这个有可能是基于今天的情报预测明天，从今天来看，存在明天下雨的可能性也存在明天不下雨的可能性，换句话说可能性是今天的事，下雨才是明天的事；而假如真正到了明天，下雨或者不下雨都会成为既定事实，下了雨就是100%下雨，没下雨就是100%不下雨，并不存在所谓的下雨可能性和不下雨的可能性的概念，所以逻辑上不存在“将会可能发生什么”，只存在“（现在来看）可能将会发生什么”

for those of you who are not native speakers of english - the best approach to problems such as this one is:
* note the differences in usage between the formal and informal
- e.g., "rate how likely" vs. "rate the likelihood that..."
* remember what these differences look like, so that you can make similar distinctions in the future.

选项E：likelihood的修饰部分，即，a particular asteroid or comet that may collide with Earth，的核心词为“一个特定的行星或彗星（a particular asteroid or comet）”。在逻辑上，应是“特定行星撞击的可能性”，而不是“特定行星的可能性”。因此，【likelihood的修饰部分应用同位语从句！】。

A选项：由于大多数顾客将购物车与低质量的折扣店联系在一起，如果引入购物车，杰罗德的高质量形象可能会受到损害。属于方案推理中的“否定性副作用”，可以削弱

A&C之间纠结
A选项说早暴露有抵抗力
C选项说蚊帐可以为除了蚊子之外的其他昆虫提供保护，但是这【违背了题干的premise】（ the use of mosquito nets over children's beds can significantly reduce the incidence of malarial infection for children in areas where malaria is common.）

从t开始增加，所以-1开始的所有奇数都在里面，但不代表-1前面的在里面。
别加戏

throughout the period women did the central work of actually making cheese.

为什么expect的约束力强呢？我期望了之后，不一定导致事情发生吧