the best way to process "as varied as" here is as an IDIOMATIC EXPRESSION.

here's a valid way to think about it: you can substitute "including" for "as varied as"; the sentence should still work.
these two don't have exactly the same meaning - i.e., "including" isn't the SAME as "as varied as" - but, if one of them is grammatically ok, then so is the other.

when you have a COMPARISON construction such as the one here ("as varied as..."), it must refer to whatever noun, noun phrase, or other type of construction IMMEDIATELY follows.
you cannot ignore intervening words. so if you have "as varied as those of...", then you must regard "those of..." as the object under comparison.

you'll find this rule pleasant, because it replaces difficult thinking with completely mechanical processes.

There's a very subtle difference in meaning, although the main issue is that of redundancy/wordiness. But consider the difference between these two sentences, which would illustrate the point:
(1) I get mail from cities as far away as Providence.
(2) I get mail from cities that are as far away as Providence.

If I'm in San Francisco, then sentence #2 means, strangely enough, that I get mail from cities that are all exactly 3,082 miles away (the distance from SF to Providence). Sentence #1 implies no such thing.

Similarly, the wrong answer (D) seems to imply that EACH country is somehow as 'varied' as EACH other country. That's not the intended meaning, which is that the SET of countries is varied.

"walker是根据australopithecine的牙齿和chimpanzees and orangutans的相似度来判定它是frugivores的。如果orangutans的饮食结构变了，那说明au也有可能。D选项environment的因素是提出来反对walker不完全对的。walker自己本身并没有考虑到环境。所以walker‘s conclusion不会受到这个影响"
留给自己复习参考

中文更注重描绘现象，英语则更注重逻辑关系的结论应该改成“中文和英文用以表达逻辑的手段不同。”英文用很多显性的语态时态体态表达逻辑，但中文不同。因为语言的表现手法不同。

Ron：
you can't use 'resulting from' as an adverbial modifier, as is done here. in general, 'resulting from' is only used as an adjective modifier, almost always without a comma, as in
the pollution resulting from the chemical spill forced all the local residents to evacuate.

E的逗号没有问题，问题在于decrease in size与后面的l形容词less distinctive， less in demand不能很好地组成平行结构

choice b "having" + "was ineffective" doesn't make sense.

"having" adopts the same timeframe as the rest of the sentence -- which is the present (we can discern this by noticing that the sentence is talking about patients who do not respond). however, "was ineffective" seems to suggest that the prescription was ineffective sometime in the past.
taken together, these two contexts seem to indicate that the patient is, for some reason, holding onto an old prescription that was ineffective.

choice c would be incorrect because of Parallelism as well. Note that "as" creates a comparison, which is a special case of P-ism. Here the "as" connects "having too low a dosage" with "treatment." The same is the case with E, in a way, as the example give is not an example of a "treatment."

in choice d
1. "It" is ambiguous (original sentence without "It" sounds better)
2. Lack of parallelism "have been" not parallel to "were"
3. "too low a drug dosage" sounds awkwardly at least.

Choice d and e："when" doesn't really work, because the sentence is talking about the things that are actually examples of inappropriate treatment.

Choice a：'the national average' would be exactly what it says: an average.
i.e., some kind of statistic.
it is not a person, so that option is nonsense.
Choice e：we do not have "subject is likely that-clause" in english。

choice a the comparison made in choice a is ok. the real problems with choice a:
- 'the ratio of 42 times' is redundant; it'd be good enough just to say '42 times'. note that the word 'ratio' is not redundant in choices c-d, since it's being used as a modifier to make a logical connection.
- it doesn't say 42 times what. not only is that unacceptably vague, but it also breaks parallelism.

choice b is badly worded: 'compares to 42 times in 1980' seems to say that, on forty-two different occasions in 1980, the ceo:blue-collar ratio reached 419:1. this is not what we are trying to say.
more generally, when speaking about ratios as is done here, you can't just write "42 times" by itself. it has to be 42 times something. sometimes you can use pronouns - the height of the sears tower is more than four times that of the statue of liberty - but you can't use empty space.

choice c exhibits proper usage of 'times' followed by their pay. it also uses the ratio, a correct identification of exactly what is being described.

the construction in choice e doesn't make sense.since that's obviously not the case here——the report points out a fact about these CEOs, not the identities of the CEOs themselves。

条件2说的是折叠后的梯形面积，我是设的边长为2a，这样好算一点

折叠后的梯形面积就是(3√3·a^2)，让这个数小于36，算得a^2小于4√3，可以粗略算出a小于2.6或大于-2.6，因为是边长所以取区间（0，2.6）

如果a=2.6，折叠后梯形下底边长是4a，所以4*2.6=11.4，大于9，不行；如果a=2，4*2=8，小于9，行。

所以条件2不充分

这人不会说中文的吗， 我寻思不是写着中文名呢吗，有点意思

建议翻译过去式的时候，都翻译成曾经怎么怎么样，曾经怎么怎么过，这样不太容易错

* Modifiers like "...(that) they are aware of" are not ok in formal English; you'd want "of which they are aware" (or something totally different, e.g., "that they know") instead.
Similarly:
the person I spoke to --> no; the person to whom I spoke --> yes.
the stores (that) most people shop at --> no; the stores at which most people shop --> yes.
The "no"s here are worth noticing because they are cornerstones of SPOKEN English (i.e., an altogether different language). If English isn't your first language, then avoiding these will, ironically, be much easier than if it were.

"There is / there are..." is just another way of saying that things exist, or that they are in a certain place.

It's certainly not a way of expressing emphasis. As far as the GMAT is concerned, there's no difference between "there are Xs" and "Xs exist", and there's no difference between "there are Xs in this place" and "Xs are in this place".

---- YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE FOR THE TEST ----

In terms of the GMAT, as I stated above the line, there's no difference.

In general usage, in fact, the construction without "there is/are" is generally more emphatic.
e.g.,
Mr. Wong, there are two people in your office. --> ok, we're just counting people, presumably for some reason mentioned earlier in the conversation.
Mr. Wong, two people are in your office. --> I specifically want to draw your attention to the people. "They want to see you", or "You should be aware that they're there; maybe you don't want them there."

i maintain that the principal issue with choice (a) is unrelated to the "with" issue. instead, the primary problem with (a) lies in its meaning.

* According to the sentence, the companies are intentionally avoiding the use of "A", "B", "1", "2", etc. So, common sense dictates that they're aware of the reason; they are certainly not avoiding those labels at random!

the problem with (a) is that it says only that companies are aware "that there are connotations". in other words, literally, the companies just know that there are connotations -- in other words, that connotations (of some sort) exist -- but the companies don't necessarily know what those connotations are.
the correct answer, on the other hand, explicitly states that the companies are "aware of the connotations" -- i.e., aware of the actual nature of those connotations.

analogy:
i am aware that discounts are available this weekend.
--> i know that there ARE discounts, but i don't necessarily know the specifics.
i am aware of the discounts available this weekend.
--> i actually know the specifics (percentages or whatever) of the discounts.

* (A), (C), and (E) don't deliver the intended meaning.
I.e., these choices don't actually say that the companies know what the connotations are. It just says that the companies know "that there are connotations".
This is a HUGE difference. If the distinction is not immediately obvious to you, consider the following sentences:
1/ I know that there are passwords for all of your bank accounts.
2/ I know the passwords for all of your bank accounts.

Parallelism is not the key differentiator between (c) and (d).
--
there are two problems i see in (d).
--
problem #1

a substance to promote... is unidiomatic.
the only context in which i can remember "a NOUN to VERB" is a context in which the NOUN is abstract in nature. for instance:
a way to produce goods
a reason to try harder
etc.
note that "substance" is a concrete item; it's not an abstraction like "way" or "reason".

if you're talking about concrete objects, you should replace the infinitive with something else. for instance:
* a substance to promote X (incorrect) --> a substance that promotes X (correct)
* a tool to install the shelves (incorrect) --> a tool with which to install the shelves (correct)
--
problem #2

"which is" is unnecessary and ugly.

if "which is" is followed by a description of something, you should just omit it, producing an appositive modifier:
X, which is a substance... (ugly) --> X, a substance... (better)
Person X, who is the coach of Team Y (ugly) --> Person X, the coach of Team Y (better)

问assumption， 那么就是其中的一个选项会使得计划行得通，那么选项E, 如果扫描打印能打印的很小，那么这个方案就行不通了。

主谓一致看错了

理解选项意思：
C 说明这种猴子相比其他猴子更容易受刺激会攻击，这就说明它已经代表了总体中最麻烦最极端的一种，连它都没问题了，任何其他的也就没问题了。