第一句：Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones
第二句：since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise
题有误

黑线划错地方了，麻烦改一下。
第一句：Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones
第二句：since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise

B. 提出一个尚未被回答的问题，错误，只是有的新的发现，推翻了以前两个推论

第一段在文中介绍了原理，第二段提出让步
作者总体的态度还是对这种方法表示肯定

加强或不能削弱

What conclusion can be drawn, for example, from Allen's discovery that Puritan clergy who had come to the colonies from East Anglia were one-third to one-half as likely to return to England by 1660 as were Puritan ministers from western and northern England? We are not told in what way, if at all, this discovery illuminates historical understanding.
Allen发现了这个现象能得出什么结论呢？我们并没有被告知，如果有结论的话，这将会点亮对历史的理解。
D. Allen的discovery只是个事实，并没有被解释

殖民历史学家大卫-艾伦对十七世纪马萨诸塞州五个社区的深入研究，是在详细的微观层面上进行细致研究的典范，并且在一定程度上令人信服。艾伦认为，英国和殖民地的农业实践和行政组织之间存在着比其他历史学家所建议的更多的一致性和直接连续性。然而，他夸大了他的论点，宣称他已经证明了 "新英格兰地方机构的多样性在很大程度上直接模仿了母国的地区差异"。

这种说法忽略了17世纪英格兰和新英格兰之间的关键差异。首先，英格兰人多地少，渴望土地；新英格兰则人烟稀少，渴望劳动力。第二，英格兰的死亡率与欧洲人一样正常；而新英格兰，尤其是第一代英国殖民者，几乎没有传染病。第三，英格兰有一个包罗万象的国家教会；而在新英格兰，教会成员只限于选民。第四，很大一部分英国村民生活在家长式的常驻乡绅之下；而在新英格兰则不存在这样的阶层。由于将重点缩小到村庄机构，而忽略了这些关键的差异，而格雷文、德莫斯和洛克里奇的研究表明这些差异是非常重要的，艾伦创造了一个有点扭曲的现实图景。

艾伦的工作是十七世纪英国历史的 "乡村社区 "学派的一个相当极端的例子，克莱夫-霍姆斯教授已经揭露了该学派将所有民族问题从该时期的历史中剔除的无礼过激行为。例如，艾伦发现，从东安格利亚来到殖民地的清教徒牧师在1660年之前返回英格兰的可能性是来自英格兰西部和北部的清教徒牧师的三分之一到二分之一，这能得出什么结论？我们没有被告知这一发现以何种方式（如果有的话）照亮了历史理解。地方史研究极大地拓展了我们的视野，但如果作者仅仅因为村庄机构的功能是村庄机构记录所揭示的全部内容，就断定村庄机构是唯一重要的东西，那就错了。

D.that is significantly different......修饰little（作为名词）有点道理
E选项differences复数肯定不用little

A选项说它不停，直接否认了这两个
B选项前面否定hypothesis2，因为他跑的时候能看清，后半段pause equally frequently whether the chase is up or down an incline.也否定了hypothesis1
C选项即使加速，他也固定时间停下，说明和体力无关，否定H1，同时肯定H2，他不会立刻加速，只会停下来之后在下一轮开始加速，这说明高速追逐的时候他是看不清的
D选项，停下不追了，无关
E选项，说明视力没问题，否定了H2，但并没有肯定H1，问题问的是否定一个与此同时肯定另一个，故错误

B选项即使正确，这个差值（由于urban和rural本质导致的）的无关变量也可以消除，两次差值做减法即可得出二氧化硫的影响
A选项同理，这个实验已经滤掉了二氧化硫，得出的一切差值是无关变量的影响，urban school二氧化硫浓度的高低无所谓，反正都会过滤掉
CE选项无关
D选项引入了一个除二氧化硫之外变量，故试验结果不准确了

现在找到的野生小麦的地方，气候并没有变化，所以说明了这里曾经也是有野生小麦的，进而被培育成可种植小麦，但如果气候发生巨变，则这里以前没有野生小麦，所以在这里发现的以前的人工培育的小麦可能来自别处，并不产自这里

hissing and rearing back, broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does and feigning repeated strikes,”嘶嘶作响把头立起来，像眼镜蛇那样拓宽头后面的肉，佯装反复攻击“ 均修饰前面的bluff虚张声势

B. 先impairment to motility，再沉入水底，沉入水底后motility无所谓
C. 人工太阳能池被稀释的水中含有杀死藻类的微生物。正确 原文提到藻类细胞是在底部遇热死亡的，沉淀在底部，换言之，藻类细胞需要活着才能吸水，下沉到底部，死亡。 而微生物杀死了藻类的话，水藻就无法下沉，挡住了阳光的吸收，干扰了太阳池的使用。

政策使得只有三分之一的车有地方停，E选项说明还有很多的车在外面空跑，所以并不会diminish significantly

方案推理
题目： 解除禁令能使得其他的鸟类数量涨回去。
方案推理选项要与方案相关。

A 禁令是什么时候颁布的。无关
B 禁令使得打猎季提前结束，这已经是很多年以前的事情了。-- 也就是说好多年还没有达到禁令的%5的猎杀数量，捕猎季就结束了。所以现在放开禁令，也没有用，因为猎杀不到%5的最大数量。
C 好多年每年猎杀的snow geese的数目都有增长。--那解除禁令的话能够杀更多的geese，增强。
D snow geese又回到了曾经被它们弃用的越冬地。 无关
E 在越冬地，没什么天敌。 无关

C. revision：修改，并没有修改这个模型

E. defend the validity of a particular study 作者维护那些觉得inconsistency的学者的结论，刚好反了
第二段的意思是：一些学者发现inconsistency，但作者指出现在已经international了，这些学者发现inconsistency是因为他们还局限在national的范围研究。(但学者可能会质疑，那凭什么上升到international就能consistency了呢?) 于是作者最后说，(即使是局限在国内的范围内,) 这个模型在研究范围越大就越consistent

a, b, c can all be eliminated because of improper idiomatic usage: the proper idiom is '...a crime for blah blah blah to hold...'
'with' in choice b is also bad: it seems to imply that immigrants arrived with the law in their hands.
choice c implies that the immigrants themselves are 'a law passed in 19xx' (analogy: 'an accomplished pianist, jay made a nice living playing at weddings' - jay is an accomplished pianist. same reading applies to this sentence, although it's considerably longer and more difficult to parse)
--
choice d doesn't do that: it writes 'because of a law', where 'a law' is definitely a noun. (the subsequent modifier 'making it a crime...' modifies 'law', and is not associated with 'because of')
--
choice e changes the meaning of the sentence: taken literally, it says that the immigrants found themselves in this unenviable situation not because of the law itself, but because of the passage of the law. although somewhat plausible, this is not the intent of the original sentence.

there's one simple way to eliminate (c), and that's to notice that "prefer ... compared to" is redundant.
you should just say "prefer ... to", as the word "prefer" already encodes the idea of making a comparison. (for the same reason, "reply back", "free gift", "the reason is because...", etc. are all wrong as well.)
--
here's how to use "compared to/with" properly: (by the way, there is no meaningful difference between "compared to" and "compared with")

if you have a sentence that says "compared to/with" or "as compared to/with", then the sentence CANNOT also say a comparison word, such as more, less, greater, prefer, better, worse, etc.

to use "compared to/with", you just STATE statistics, without using any other comparison word.

examples:
this year's unemployment rate of 12% is three times as great compared to the rate in 1994 --> incorrect (redundant)

the correct way to write it:
this year's unemployment rate is 12%, compared to 4% in 1994
i.e., you just come out and SAY the statistics, and then give "compared to".

the easy way to eliminate (b) is to know that "would" is incorrect.

"would" can be used as a past-tense form of "will" -- for instance, i know that we will win translates into the past tense as i knew that we would win -- or to express a hypothetical situation that isn't true. neither of these is the case here; this is a prognostication of future events, so the future tense makes sense and the conditional ("would") doesn't.

the hard way to eliminate (b) is to realize that its construction - the placement of the commas and the word "that" - isn't right.
because of the placement of the commas and "that", this choice mistakenly puts "executives are convinced" in parallel with "1/3 of customers prefer...". that makes no sense.
in (a), though, since "that" precedes the comma, the parallelism is different: "1/3 of customers prefer..." is now parallel to "many travelers will...", as it logically should be.