https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/post24841.html#p24841

加强 取非后满足

额外好处 错
否定副作用 对（针对该特点）

反驳结论即削弱
因果评估：第三方因素

只需要解释一句话或一个词 直接判断

时间关联+因果=相关因果
评估：相关（2者）、独立第三因素

方案推理（目标、方案）
评估方案：可行性、否定性副作用的取非、

加强因果推理 答案在取非后满足

此题是道简单的题目，前后比较的对象是level，而不是carbon emissions。以后做题要保持认真、细心、严谨的态度，这是改进的地方。

Defeat 反驳

老师请解释一下，OG2017的OA是这样解释A的：The second clause is awkward and unclear; there is no clear subject for "expected".

为什么是因果关系，这两句话说的不是一个意思吗？

贴一个其他人的解释
按句意，that明明就是修饰troubles啊
相当于The computer company’s present troubles（ that several attempts to revise corporate strategies have failed to correct ）are a result of technological stagnation, marketing missteps, and managerial blunders
公司目前的困难（多次修订战略都无法解决的困难），是因为technological stagnation, marketing missteps, and managerial blunders

specifically, you don't use "fewer than" with NUMBERS + UNITS OF CONTINUOUS MEASURE, such as gallons, years, feet, liters, etc.
this isn't really an exception to the rule, anyway, since those units fail both of the criteria above. for instance, if i have N gallons of something, then (1) fails because i can easily have a decimal number of gallons, and (2) of fails because the gallons are not physically separable quantities -- just one big mass of fluid.

for instance, people, shirts, books, etc. all satisfy these two criteria. you can't have decimal quantities of any of those things, and each unit is separable from the other units.

you only use "fewer than" with what are called countable items.
strictly speaking, this means things that:
1) ONLY exist in whole number quantities (i.e., you can't have, say, 5.5 of them), and
2) are actually separable from each other.

选项B这个逗号是怎么回事？

tricky！！