因果
科学家是受伟大研究而驱动的，并且只视以此为驱动力的工作者为同仁。
如果一位科学家被誉为普及者，那么他也就不再是科学家的同仁了。
Assu，增强因果联系
A、科学研究需要合作，无关
B、科学家不会将自己的敌人视为同仁，无关
C、一位没做过完整研究的科学家也可以成为popularizer，做没做过完整研究与受什么驱动无关
D、被认为是popularizer的科学家不再motivated to do important new research，不再这样，也就不再被视为同仁了，CORRECT
E、不是科学家的人不能接触或准确评价important new research，无关（与同仁无关）
主句：Lina's sunbird has shimmering metallic colors on its head 成分很完整
【转自RON神】
the core of the sentence is
a bird has colors.
both 'found in the philippines'** and 'resembling a hummingbird' are modifiers. they use somewhat different specific verb forms—but they both modify the same thing, and so they're parallel.
like不能用于举例子，杀BE
D、while if substituted for more traditional fertilizers, this substitution的表达实在是太redundancy了，而且while if substituted 的动作发出者应该是 fertilizers，而不是usage
C、篡改句意，substitutions 指的是traditional的
A 在常客和生客身上的效果一样，无关
B 取反后的意思是，在账单上看到thank you看多了以后，顾客给小费的习惯会退回到之前的习惯，就是不给消费了。取反之后会削弱，所以是答案。
C thank you的心理作用，无关。
D 给消费的概率跟餐馆贵不贵无关。题目中没有提到餐厅是什么样子的。
E 几乎所有的常客都给了更多的小费。跟是不是所有的常客没有关系。
摘自曼哈顿论坛： A bit of a red herring - you could technically construct the sentence correctly either way. I'd prefer the "an increase in their use" however because that emphasizes the distinction I'm trying to make - the key point is the increase, and this is emphasized by making "the increase" the subject. But I'd go look for other, more definitive grammar errors first before deciding on this.
Luci correctly points out a distinction between "such as" and "like" in the answers. Such as means "for example" - like means "similar to." (In everyday spoken language, people use "like" as the default now - but that's grammatically incorrect.) Eliminate B and E. (B also has a pronoun error - "it" refers to a plural noun.)
C messes up the contrast I want to make by starting with "if these fertilizers." Also generally kind of awkward / wordy, but only use that as a tiebreak.
The problem with D lies at the end of the choice: "while if substituted for more traditional fertilizers, this substitution..." Notice the first part of that, before the comma - it never actually mentions what is being substituted, either via a noun or pronoun. This is a modifying clause. The modifier is meant to modify "synthetic fertilizers" which is a noun, so this is a noun modifier - and noun modifiers must touch the noun they modify. But "this substitution" follows the comma, not "synthetic fertilizers" (or some other noun or pronoun that refers to synthetic fertilizers). No good. Eliminate D.
Which leaves us with A. Notice that A doesn't sound particularly good. But there's nothing grammatically wrong with it... It's not uncommon for A to sound not-so-good when it is the right answer - otherwise, how would they get someone to cross off A when it's right, especially on a hard question?
Comma+participle" can modify the subject of the previous main clause. This sort of modifier should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
1) it should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) it should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* immediate consequence
* simultaneous, but lower-priority, action
here, this modifier doesn't have either of these 2 relationships to the main clause, so it's used inappropriately.
when we say "immediate consequence, we mean a consequence that is proximate, immediate, and produced as an essentially unavoidable result of the main action. for instance:
the bullet entered Smith's brain, killing him instantly --> this is an immediate and automatic consequence; if the bullet does this, then smith will be killed.
John scored 90 on the most recent test, raising his overall average by two points --> again, an immediate and automatic consequence; if john gets this score, there will automatically be the stated consequence for his average.
in the problem at hand, drawing new conclusions is not an automatic and essentially unavoidable consequence of amassing the knowledge in question; the researchers must actively go beyond just amassing the knowledge to draw those conclusions.
扫描二维码，直接登录
因果
科学家是受伟大研究而驱动的，并且只视以此为驱动力的工作者为同仁。
如果一位科学家被誉为普及者，那么他也就不再是科学家的同仁了。
Assu，增强因果联系
A、科学研究需要合作，无关
B、科学家不会将自己的敌人视为同仁，无关
C、一位没做过完整研究的科学家也可以成为popularizer，做没做过完整研究与受什么驱动无关
D、被认为是popularizer的科学家不再motivated to do important new research，不再这样，也就不再被视为同仁了，CORRECT
E、不是科学家的人不能接触或准确评价important new research，无关（与同仁无关）