我的疑问是cowpox导致 a mild illness 应该是原理，然后所以应该用causes？

今天看到Manhattan SC上相关的知识点:
1, （曼哈顿SC 6th的P74）Any "cooma -ing" structures are adverbial modifiers. 所以这题里的“causing only a mild illness”只能是伴随状语，而不是简化的定从。
2, （曼哈顿SC 6th的P148）The CONDITIONAL TENSE is formed by combining "would" with the base form of the verb. This construction expresses the future from the point view of the past. 我的理解是would+v.是个条件从句，这里与虚拟语气无关。

如果解读有误，请老师指正。谢谢！

approached their success不是A中的exceed the success

A it指代对象错误，在本选项中it指代population，应指India；what is estimated as与probably重复
B they没有指代对象
C 正确，句子and后面的surpass China, 决定此处用 the country 最合理
DE there be结构无法与未划线部分句子的and surpass连接。

being heavily committed to a course of action这里being表同时性吗？如果表的话是合理的吗

读选项的能力有问题
The percentage ...rise to ...
more than 副词修饰10%，并不是比较关系

类比——加强的话，则找到现在和过去一样的“点”。

找到削弱 "反驳不是由人引起” 的证据，即找由人引起的证据

请选项A为什么错误，serious injuries和 those平行

用方案来做是否可以？
方案：使用三厢车增加，目标：降低事故率，
可否这样理解：A. 三厢卡车都被派往长途运输了，其他的普通运输就没有三厢车可以用了，所以此方案不可行

关于选项A补充一点：若将wasps living xxx 认为是独立主格结构，该独立主格结构表达的含义与主句表达的含义无法构成有逻辑意义的句意，所以将逗号后的部分处理成同位语。若为构成同位语结构，用that引导定语从句修饰wasps就可以清晰的表达了，即选项B。

Dismissive：轻视的；Indifferent：漠不关心的；Vindictive：报复性的；Cautious：谨慎的；Ambivalent：模棱两可的。
我选的是cautious, 事后想一想这个选项还是有问题的——文章最后一段全是对T的批判，并且用词相当犀利，如faulty、unconvincing、unrepresentative。 虽然dismissive这种极端的情感一般不会成为考试的正确选项（在ETS考试中），但是这篇文章中，作者确实对T这个人的research不屑一顾，怀有极端不满情感。

如何能买到详细的解答啊

fewer or less

in (e), the first "they" is again fine - same antecedent as (d), albeit burdened with the same awkward repetition problem - but the second "they" doesn't have an antecedent.

in (d), "they" unambiguously refers to "many population studies", so it's fine (although it constitutes unnecessary repetition - this is already the subject of the sentence, so it needn't be repeated; see (c))
the principal problem with (d) is the lack of tense parallelism. since "have linked" is in the present perfect, the present perfect is also compulsory for the other verb (i.e., it should be "shown", not "showed").

A & B are incorrect because "their" is referring to societies but that is illogical because it is people in the societies and not the soiciety itself that can have blood pressure.

pay payments 我去

some约等于0

wrong: i've always wanted to jump out of a plane, but i've never had the chance to do it. --> this is wrong because the only possible antecedent for "it" is plane, and it doesn't make any sense to talk about "doing" a plane.
correct: i've always wanted to jump out of a plane, but i've never had the chance to do so. --> "do so" = jump out of a plane.