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.

看了这道题目半天，其实排出ABC后... 这个句子是缺乏一个动词的，按照这种逻辑其实也可以容易地排除 e

"if you see a SPLIT between "will" and "would", then it's most likely that we are dealing with a tense issue.
* if we are actually talking about an event that has not occurred yet -- i.e., an event that is genuinely in the future -- then we should usually use "will".
* if we are talking about an event that was still a future event at the time described in the sentence (but is no longer a future event), then we should use "would".

a couple of examples:

several experts have predicted that brazil will win the world cup in 2014. (as of this writing it is not 2014 yet, so the future tense is appropriate)

last year, several experts predicted that brazil would win this year's world cup. (this year's world cup is now over, so it's inappropriate to use the future tense. therefore, we use "would", which is a tense that we use to describe something that was once a future event, but is no longer)

in ancient times, the mayans predicted that the world will end in the year that corresponds to A.D. 2012 on the modern gregorian calendar. (2012 has not happened yet, so we still use the future tense for the prediction -- even though the prediction was made a really, really long time ago)"

"In general,

1 * if you have than/as + subject + FORM OF "TO BE" as the second half of a comparison, then you must have another form of "to be" in the first half of the comparison.
or, there should be something in the first half that would make sense with "to be" in front of it.

2 * if you have than/as + subject + HELPING VERB as the second half of a comparison, you can have just about any other form of the same verb in the first part, as determined by context.

3 * if you have than/as + subject + FORM OF "TO DO" as the second half of a comparison, then you must have an ACTION VERB[/b] (or another form of "to do") in the first half of the comparison.

here are some examples:
#1
the air quality of las vegas is higher this year than it was in 2005.
also
parking spots are disappearing much more quickly today than they were yesterday.
#2
james can negotiate with salespeople more effectively than stephanie can. (comparing their abilities)
james can negotiate with salespeople more effectively than he does. (his ability exceeds his actual performance, probably because he just isn't trying very hard)
#3
parking spots disappeared much faster today than they did yesterday.
tanya eats more slowly than she did when she was a teenager. (note that "did" doesn't have to have the same tense as the action verb)"

B and连接两个主句，whereas是个从句，不能用and与后面的句子连接。
C they没有可以指代的名词
D each language in adults不对
E and前面不是一个句子，是个独立主格结构。

A and they subsidize与前面的offer a variety of programs在层级上不是一个级别的，subsidize public nurseries and kindergartens应该是属于programs之一。 另外for要表示目的，后面一般跟n.，跟doing是表示原因。
B to include ...和后面的subsidizing不平行，而且to include本身不正确。
C to assist working parents是目的，但是to include paid maternity and paternity leaves, ... and to subsidize ...不是目的，是达到目的的方式，三者不能并行。
D which includes中includes要用复数，先行词是复数的programs
E 正确。 to assist working parents表示目的， including...列举programs。 分别是leaves, allowances和public nurseries and kindergartens.

用排除法
应该是evidence of the close relationship between dinosaurs and birds, 所以the close relationship和between dinosaurs and birds不能分开用，between dinosaurs and birds是定语用来修饰the close relationship. 另外dramatic是adj，放在名词前面。more dramatic evidence有歧义，要用evidence that is more dramatic than ...来表示dramatic的比较，或者用more evidence that is dramatic than ...来表示更多。

所以可以排除BCE

D that have yet been discovered是限制性定语从句，修饰的是dinosaurs and birds， "现在已经发现的恐龙和鸟类”，但是发现的是evidence。

M说法官的工资太低了，吸引不了最优秀的人来工作。涨薪也不行，因为禁止法官有偿授课。
P就说涨薪能解决问题的，因为很少有法官去授课。

问P的说法有哪方面的不足。

A P是基于现在的情况来做的预估。 现在没法官出去授课，是因为现在就禁止有偿上课啊。it was coupled with a ban ...
B 因果搞反了。这里没说到因果，说的是某一个方案有没有效果。
C 因为支出了没有副作用，所以方案有用。
D 只是反对M的说法，没给出论据。给出理由了。
E 对大多数人有用就是对所有人有用。没提到。

先排除CD，主语是discovery单数，谓语是are responsible复数。
E 主句缺乏谓语。that Earth's inner core, rotating ..., is responsible for ... its direction.
剩下AB
B里边how heat from the inner core flows through the outer planet和the formation and periodic reversal不平行。

题目： 监狱里头犯人越来越多
找削弱

A 还有很多其他的刑罚，不用关监狱。那监狱里的人应该越来越少。
B 过去十年，监狱的拥挤被eliminate。监狱的人应该变少。
D 假释人犯罪显著减少。那假释被重新关会监狱的人变少了，监狱的人应该变少
E 人们的感觉，不准

C 最低刑期变成，慢慢地在监狱里头服刑的人就会越来越多。

Here is Ron's explanation of why B, C, D and E are wrong:

"(B) you can't use 'that' in this sort of construction, because constructions using 'that of' (or other preposition after 'that') must have EXACTLY parallel structures. in other words, if the second half says 'that during 10,000 years', then the preceding half must say 'the growth of ___ during something else' (or some other time preposition, such as before or after, in place of during).

there's nothing ungrammatical about 'from when', because the clause starting with 'when' is a perfectly legitimate noun clause (i.e., 'when agriculture began' serves as a noun. however:
- it's possible that the gmat does consider such constructions wrong; the only way to tell is to see if they say so in any official answer choices
- regardless of where the gmat stands on the issue, 'the beginning of agriculture' is unquestionably better than 'when agriculture began' (i.e., an actual noun is almost always superior to a circuitous noun clause, when possible)"

"(C) First, you've got a "which" modifier that isn't preceded by a comma, so that's an automatic failure. (note that you can use preposition + which without a comma -- e.g., the box in which you placed your valuables -- but you cannot do so with just plain "which".)

more importantly, "had been" is not parallel to anything in the other half of the sentence; in order to use a parallel structure that contains a form of "to be", you must have another form of "to be" in the other half of the parallel structure.
check out more details here:
http://www.beatthegmat.com/soar-t62473-15.html#280069"

"(D) you can't use the present perfect if the time interval is over. If the trend continues into the present day, then the present perfect is appropriate.
Even if that were fixed, choice D still suffers from fatal wordiness / lack of concision, especially in comparison to the correct choice."

"(E) The growth of the global economy since 1990 exceeds what it did for the 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture.

'what it did' doesn't make any sense:
* the growth didn't 'do' anything
* there's no other verb to which 'did' could logically be parallel to complete the comparison"

题目： T出现在骨髓和癌细胞中。
问：依据描述能得出什么结论。

A T是唯一的酶....， the only没说
B T是唯一不出现在哪里的酶, the only body tissues，没说
C 骨髓细胞里边出现T不一定就是得了骨髓癌。对的
D 骨髓癌比其他组织癌发展得快，没说
E T酶在癌组织中的产生速度要比非癌组织里要快，说不定骨髓细胞里边的level更高呢