"with the intention of" 与 “intended"的区别
"With the intention of" can only describe people and/or other entities that can legitimately have "intentions" (corporations, governments, etc.) unless in some contexts, geographical names are used to refer to governments, which can have intentions.

重点是自贩机中的可乐

Until now have done
Until recently did

A中成本下降，有可能利润上升，所以应该导致阈值变大。（成本与利润之间可能有关，但成本与收入之间并无绝对关系）
如果A选项改为成本上升，则利润下降，阈值就减小，此时有可能正确。

老师，我这样的理解对吗

d选项可以通过，其他所含酸可能不显性来推翻

是不是因为 t会存在于分解的快的细胞里， bm里的细胞分解快， 癌细胞分解的快。但是因为bn细胞本来分解的就快，所以它不需要癌变也可能有t存在。

题目问的是1@0的值

a选型一开始因为读不懂被ignore了，看到c马上像打了鸡血一样选了，于是就忘了回去比较a跟c

不同意，为什么总量=人均X人数？即然有高科技在，那么也可以是总量=机器平均X机器数

另外对于这种句型的比较，他有提到：
Generally, SUBJECT + V. + COMPARATIVE should not be followed that or those.
Incorrect: The company had higher profits in 1990 than those in 1980.
Correct: The company had higher profits in 1990 than in 1980.

比较的题型：1）比两样东西（名词），2）比两个动作（动词）。
这里比较的是两个动作，所以，有一个省略用法 [sub+verb]+modifier，只保留modifier，选C。
如果是比较两个东西, 比如circulation in.... is lower than that in ....，就应该是D。

为什么这个they不能指代wild animals呢？

差点选了a
a选项只是局限于已经品尝到的人，只有这一类群体是认为会继续购买，没有提到有造成四倍销量的方法，而d表明了会有更大的市场。所以d更好

老师，这道题目为什么不能理解成为方案推理呢？

this sentence:
they (= major economic shifts) are unable to be distinguished...
i don't like this, because we're not actually talking about an "inability" possessed by the economic shifts themselves.
if we'd said something like "economic shifts are unable to destroy your equity", then i'd find that more appealing.

OG10-171. In 1527 King Henry VIII sought to have his marriage to Queen Catherine annulled so as to marry Anne Boleyn.
(A)so as to marry
(B)and so could be married to
(C)to be married to
(D)so that he could marry
(E)in order that he would marry
Key: D
请问这道题为什么选择D

“C选项：already stimulating international disputes over uninhabited islands是现在分词短语。其在逻辑上既可以做定语也可以做伴随状语。由于本选项中其逻辑主语是provisions of the new maritime code，所以它肯定是定语” 这里是如何推出肯定是定语这个结论的 为什么就不能是状语呢