A本身没错，但并不是作者反驳的地方，journalist看real GDP per capita，但作者认为应该关注growth rate of real GDP per capita
B journalist并没有提到growth rate
C journalist 没提到productivity
D高估的不是amount而应该是growth rate
E. Is correct because it is telling use that Journalist failed to consider historical evidence about US economy.
"Some journalists have argued that the United States economy performed ideally in 1997. However, the real GDP is almost always higher than ever before; it falls only during recessions. One point these journalists overlooked is that in 1997, as in the twenty-four years immediately preceding it...."这些记者忽略的一点是，1997年和之前的24年一样，实际人均GDP每年的增长速度比1873年至1973年的平均速度慢了近一半。如果1997年的经济真如人们所说的那样强劲，那么1997年的实际人均GDP增长率就会超过1873年至1973年的实际人均GDP平均增长率

D. the rate of fatty foods consumed指的是被吃掉的食物占所有食物的比例
E. the rate of people consuming fatty foods是吃fatty food的人站所有人口的比例
而实际的意思应该是两国消耗fatty food的速率

emmmm,对方案推理总是忘记选项要与方案有关....总是靠感觉做题.....

A. proportion of the Greenville Times's total revenue was generated by advertising sales，无关
BE都是他因削弱

原文 If the population of these other species were increased
B 若population现在受限，则增加其他食物的population并不会减少吃老鼠染病的数量
D 全文都在说是在幼虫时期感染，D选项说adult会不会感染，无关

AC. their 错误
BDE：例子
[1] The committee chose Mr. Smith of Left Block, who was the most experienced member, to lead all the management-related operations.

Many of you will right away discard this sentence as “incorrect” because “who” is not preceded by “Mr. Smith”, the noun it should logically refer to. Well, this sentence is absolutely correct. There is no modification error here. Here “who” correctly modifies “Mr. Smith”.

This is so because the newly added prepositional phrase “of Left Block” is a modifier that modifies “Mr. Smith”. So it is placed next to that entity. This prepositional cannot be placed elsewhere in the sentence without violating the structure and the meaning of the sentence. So now instead of just “Mr. Smith” in sentence 1, we have a “noun phrase” in sentence 2 – “Mr. Smith of Left Block”. In this scenario, “who” has the liberty to jump over the preceding preposition phrase (modifier) to modify the HEAD of this noun phrase – “Mr. Smith”

and
[2] The committee chose Mr. Smith in the last meeting, who was the most experienced member, to lead all the management-related operations.

However, the sentence [2] is not correct. Here “who” ends up modifying immediately preceding noun “the last meeting”, resulting in modifier error.
This is so because “in the last meeting” does not modify “Mr. Smith” because it is an adverbial modifier and hence cannot modify a Noun. It rather modifies the action “chose”. When did the committee choose? It did in the last meeting. This prepositional phrase can actually be placed right in the beginning of the sentence, after “The committee”, or before “Mr. Smith” to convey the intended meaning. Hence, here “who” cannot jump over the preceding noun. Notice how per the context of this sentence, the expression “Mr. Smith in the last meeting” is not a noun phrase. Contrast this with the noun phrase in the original sentence “Mr. Smith of Left Block”.
若介宾短语修饰前面的名词，则which/who可以跳跃修饰前面的名词，但例子2中的“in the last meeting”和BD中的in the country一样，虽是介宾短语但不修饰前面的名词，故不能跳跃修饰

if the deal虚拟语气用were

老师，to be sighted作为定语怎么理解呀，对不定式有点困惑。谢谢！

A. 他因削弱
BD. 其他鸟怎么样，与crookbeak迁移的真正原因无关
E. 削弱

前后是转折关系，且A中gave应该改成give

argument：overall impact才是评选标准，而不是number of publications
问反驳
E. 当作者把文章拆分成多个发布后，有更大机会被升职
一切都要落到升职上，B选项错误
题干说 “这些人更看重候选人出版物对其领域的影响，而不是看出版物的数量”。其实题目从头到尾谈论的都是published——出版后的作品，等同于默认了作品出版发表后才能对相应领域产生贡献（想象一下你写了再多牛逼的论文但是没有发表，如何对领域产生影响）。 所以B项更接近support而不是against

supporters of Jackson resisted the commercialization
resist：阻止

drawing不是have amassed的直接结果，所以drawing无法做have amassed的伴随结果
还有，句子本意是强调现在做了些什么，这应该是主句

C. an alliance that advanced the cause of civil rights 这些专家的观点是战后人权运动的推进没有被联盟影响，而不是人权运动的起因没有被影响
E. would have benefited 本可以...

第二十题的错误应该为it指代不清吧，发生没有快慢之分嘛？

makes it more expensive for them代词指代混乱
且E选项 Ron：in the construction "it is (adjective) for XXXX to (verb)", the adjective describes what XXXX experience(s) in trying to (verb).
e.g.，This book is hard for me to read. (I experience difficulty in reading this book.) so, choice E is saying that the appliances themselves have to spend a lot of money "to be bought on credit". well, that doesn't make any sense.

注意“serious crimes”
argument是政府的措施是否会减少犯罪，学校有什么措施与本文argument无关

be able to表示主观能力，不用被动

看经过device检测concussion的运动员是否会出现严重的不适：是的话，device不准，好的决定，游泳
- B correct： 运用设备做sound decision about 运动员重返的比赛的状态（范围明确）

Which of the following, if true, would be the most logically effective rebuttal （a proponent of the city’s plan） could make to Kayla’s objection?- 如何反驳K ，支持City