动名词短语increasing sea surface temperatures during the same period需改为名词短语an increase in sea surface temperatures during the same period，这点考查了名词和动名词的区别：
名词和动名词的最大区别在于强调结果还是强调过程。动名词强调这个事件的过程，而纯名词强调这个事件的结果
(1) Studying Chinese is hard. (2) **The study of Chinese is hard
(3)**Studying Chinese enables me to work in China. (4) The study of Chinese enables me to work in China.
状语要修饰离自己最近的那个动词，导致逻辑语意不同：
A creatures were suffering是因为increasing temperatures. (possibly a result from increasing是creatures of the seabed were suffering的状语。)
B creatures were suffering是因为food supplies were dwindling , dwingling 的原因是increase in temperatures (possibly as a result of an increase是food supplies were dwindling的状语。)
具有fewer calories than关系的两者应该是a diet和a diet that they would normally eat，所以than后需要写出比较的对象（时态或情态等任何的不同均不能省略），即they would normally eat，（省略，对比... than "in" xx or 1980s）
"which"只能就近修饰，语法上没错但语义错误，第一个就该排除！
A选项：由于定语从句的就近修饰原则，所以consist的主语为each animal（each of which引导非限定性定语修饰animals）。这在逻辑上是不正确的。由一个母老鼠和一些工作老鼠组成应该是一个群落（colony），而不是一只动物（animal）。
重点：[the gravitational force] of ( Jupiter and its other moons )
弄清n. of n. and n.的结构，分清主语是the gravitational force！！！
A选项：结果状语从句 generate so much heat that it would melt ice below Europa’s surface应改为不定式短语to melt ice below Europa’s surface。这点考查了不定式和从句的区别。用之于本题，由于变化部分是generate的宾语的补足语，所以应根据generate在本题中的【约束力！】来判断。显然地，“产生”可以【控制！】“热量融化冰块”这个动作的发生与否，应该选择不定式的形式。
(C)(D)(E)用了同位语，定语从句that other Scandinavian kings attempted later in the century to repeat的先行词为an achievement，也充当repeat的宾语。
C选项：代词it的指代对象只能是单数名词，不能指代句子。在逻辑上，were not successful at的对象应该是整个复制的行为，而不是某一个单数名词。
other Scandinavian kings attempted later in the century to repeat, but were not successful at it是an achievement的定语从句。不能用定语从句的某个成分去指代先行词啊（那样整个逻辑就乱了，本来定语从句就是修饰语，在地位上低了先行词一头，不能在定语从句里用一个代词去指整个先行词嘛）
E选项：Correct. 本选项在语法和逻辑上均是正确的。but without success是一个省略句，还原为正常的句子为
other Scandinavian kings attempted to repeat later without success. (省略！)
A选项：比较对象不对等。具有“一样高（as high as）”关系的应该是“去年的利率（interest rates last year）”和“1980年代的利率（interest rates in the early 1980s）”，不是“去年的利率（interest rates last year）”和“1980年代”。
关于比较对等:
the rates were not nearly as high as the early 1980s，直接和年份比较the early 1980s，错误，rates无法和年份比较 ❌
the rates were not nearly as high as （the rates）in the early 1980s 加了in年份，或者加了the rates in 年份，正确， the rates 可省略✅(注意"in"！！！)
"being" in (a) is not only unnecessary, but also not used idiomatically.
in general, "being" can be used in some instances where you're talking about X (specific) being a Y (general).
for instance, jake did not enjoy being a graduate student.
notice that the GENERAL category - graduate student - follows "being". the SPECIFIC (jake) doesn't.
you can't do this in reverse.
this choice tries to use the specific (the particular concern) after "being", rather than the general category (an obstacle to congressional passage). regardless of whether the usage of "being" is appropriate otherwise (which, here, it isn't anyway), you can't do that.
(b) breaks up "a concern" from "that the bank’s loans will help...". once that modifier is divorced from "a concern", it is no longer clear exactly what is the concern.
also, "a concern" is problematic. since the sentence cites one very specific concern, it should say "the concern".
(d) first, there's a change in meaning by setting "an obstacle to congressional passage" off in commas. It makes it a nonessential modifier, but this fact is necessary to the meaning of the sentence. the core of that clause becomes "legislators cite the concern" and we lose the important "as an obstacle" piece.
second -- look at the placement of the modifiers.
"that the bank's loans with..." should immediately follow "the concern", since that is what it modifies.
similarly, "as an obstacle..." should be as close as possible to "cite", because that's what it modifies.
in the correct answer, both of these modifiers are placed immediately next to the things that they're supposed to modify; in (d), both constructions are needlessly separated.
(e) the problem with (e) is"it". it's not ambiguous, though; it actually doesn't refer to anything at all. there's no noun in there, anywhere, to which "it" can refer.
("Ambiguous", in reference to pronouns, is used to refer to a pronoun that has 2 or more possible antecedents, not to refer to a noun that has no possible antecedent.)
嵌入式关系分句：有一种关系分句(即定语从句)，它既是先行词的后置修饰语(即定语)，同时又是另外一个分句结构的宾语(即宾语从句)
In his breastpocket he had a patch of scarlet, which I suppose was the paper cap serving as a handkerchief.
还原进定语从句并补全省略部分，则有：
I suppose (that) patch of scarlet was the paper cap serving as a handkerchief.
注意理清语义，本题的宾语应是statements about an opponent 而不是opponent！
即：A recent poll of elected officials suggests that candidates, when in the midst of a tough campaign, often make statements about an opponent that they may not think are true.
最近一项对当选官员的民意调查显示，在激烈的竞选中，候选人往往会发表自己可能认为不真实的关于对手的言论。
Remember—Step One of ANY sentence correction problem is "Figure out the exact intended meaning."
The easiest way to gauge whether you're doing Step One well enough is to see what happens when you have to make decisions involving meaning.
If you have to figure out the meaning in retrospect--AFTER noticing a split--then that's a failure of Step One.
In other words, when you encounter a split that depends on context, you should already be aware of the EXACT intended meaning of the relevant words. Meaning is not the kind of thing that you should have to "go back and figure out".
• If you encounter a pronoun in any answer choice, you should already know what it's meant to stand for. You should not have to go back to figure that out.
• If you encounter a modifier, you should alredy know what it's meant to describe. Shouldn't have to go back.
• If you see the second half of a parallel structure (e.g., "... and xxxx"), you should already know what the first half is. Shouldn't have to go back.
This might seem demanding, but it really isn't--it's just normal reading. I.e., not strange "academic" reading, but rather the kind of reading you'd do for pleasure.
If you were reading a book and came to a sentence with a description (= a "modifier"), then you would absolutely know what it was describing! (And if you didn't, you wouldn't keep reading until you'd thought it through.)
Step 1 is actually just like reading a book or magazine. Not "academic" at all.
the "with" modifier is attached directly to the old animal (the one from which the elephant is descended). that's not the intended message of the sentence: the sentence is meant to describe the evolution of the elephant's trunk, not some earlier animal's trunk.
the -ING modifier is also troublesome, because -ING modifiers adopt the timeframe of the clause to which they are attached. the problem here is that we need to change the timeframe: "the elephant is descended..." is stated in the present, because it's a timeless fact about evolution, but "its trunk originally evolved..." needs to be in the past because it's an isolated historical event. the -ING modifier mistakenly suggests that both of these belong to the same timeframe.
扫描二维码，直接登录
相关因果推理。
相关因果推理有四个评估方向，简而言之，即，答案选项要么同时提及“报道产生的负面影响”和“观众的减少”，要么给“观众的减少”另外一个原因。
前提：“报道产生的负面影响”和“观众的减少”之间存在正相关关系
结论：报道产生的负面影响导致了观众的减少。
A选项：Correct. 【其它】各大主流网络新闻组织在同一时期出现了类似的情况。这说明流量下滑的原因可能是【行业性】的，其给了“观众的减少”另一个原因（涉及果）。属于CQ2：独立第三因素问题。
D选项: 该新闻组织因为发表争议性报道而招致投诉的事情已经不是第一次了。疑似CQ1：相关性，但只说了因（招致投诉），没有果（观众数量减少），如果说的是其他时候也有争议性报道而招致投诉但并不影响网站的观众数量可行？。
做这种题要准确的判断题目给出的因和果究竟是什么，紧抓"因""果"来推理选项！