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?

手段
激励T人以旧换新自动汽车→促进经济、减少空气污染
削弱
A、T人没有激励，不会以旧换新，增强
B、在T，自动汽车的空气污染没有其他车程度深，无关
C、T的新车不出口，无关
D、在T，空气污染最大来源为 power plants，不是汽车尾气；与整个手段无关
E、以旧换新的过程污染空气，CORRECT，说明了手段的副作用

India主谓一致杀AC，each+单数去掉E

either……or……之间平行可以杀ABC
because of + n. 杀D

either……or……之间平行可以杀ABC
because of + n. 杀D

果因
∵没发现European trade goods（European traders在1620‘s活跃）
∴NA camp的年代在1605-1630之间
加强，因果链条/加强∵的说服力（此题为后者）

A、Euro的货物来得比人早，这个条件能加强需要在发现European trade goods 的基础上，无关

B、在所有能追溯到 late 1620's的camps中，都有European trade goods出现，加强了文中说的“European traders在1620‘s活跃”这一点，所以当∵的真实性被进一步证明，加强∴理所应当，CORRECT

C、来到这里（ the area ）的European trade goods都会被珍藏，太模糊了，勉强
D、Euro的trader是在explorer之后来的，无关
E、这个 camp 是季节性的

A、which应该和被修饰的离得尽量近一些；句子成分残缺，无谓语
B、having processed体现先时性，但句子时空关系错误；此外，句子重心转换
C、 being rebuilt现在进行时，与in 1900 时间标志不相匹配
E、 having first opened同时性修饰不明

句意：先建造，再重构，才能process

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.

类比
每层新的都与顶层那个（没有因为新旧而改变）的thickness and weight一样，新的更贵
但增强，
证明新比旧好（符合长期经济利益），找新的优点（两者不同之处）

A、新的被提供，无关新的优点
B、旧的比新的更重，对 airliner's load-bearing capacity 造成影响，CORRECT（新的的保质期更长，耐用）
C、新的没有旧的保护得好，削弱
D、新的用于宇宙飞船，能耐airline永远不会经历的高温；无关
E、相似之处，削弱

B lake has rivers, 语义错误
C it错误
D while错误，while要么表示时间，要么表示转折，题目里头没有这个关系
E lake, more than all the lakes combined, 从其他选项可以看出，是湖水和all the lakes combined做比较，不能是lake本身去跟all the lakes combined 做比较。

题目论点：取消关税会使得政府在减少城区失业的努力白费。
要求削弱：即便取消关税，城区失业状况也不会恶化。

A 副产品怎样怎样，无关
B 其他国家怎样怎样，无关
C 种腰果的人多于加工腰果的人，无关
D 加工完的腰果能买个好价钱，无关
E 现在很多农民涌入城市，相关，如果农民能靠种腰果获利颇丰，就不会离开农村去城市，那么城市的失业状况就会得到改善。

题目的观点：group大小的季节性变化，是因为幼崽死亡率的季节性变化导致的。
关键点：幼崽死亡率，季节性

A 只提到了幼崽的高比例，不是死亡率。无关
B C D都无关
E 提到了幼崽死亡率。

due to只能修饰名词，or = caused by
D、具体时间点不用过去完成时，过去完成时必须强调时间的先后逻辑关系，而 in the 1920's 放在句首修饰整个句子
C、having been现在完成时出现在过去时间点，改变句子意思
B、redundancy，关键是句子重心变化
A、employing的动作发出者不应该是jobs
AB中的 in the 1920's 修饰对象存在歧义

未划线部分现在完成时，不能对应DE一般过去
society的血压不会伴随年龄上升（没有血压、也没有年龄），杀AB

at a cost 以什么为代价

either……or……之间平行几乎可以排除ALL WRONG
AB中的it指代不清（指的应该是前面整件事）

与company主谓一致杀ABD
E、with的独立主格结构变了句意，把在海外税高的意思偷换为所有的（暗指）税高

more……than……杀BD
group主谓一致杀BCE
D、改变句子意思
CE成分残缺，C没有用to be的必要

B、it had won high praise中“it”指代不清；her不能修饰所有格名词
C、having won的修饰对象应该是TWP，但相隔太远，不可能是；且未划线的its没法解释
D、句子成分残缺segment
E、her不能修饰所有格名词

B选项排除的原因
Traditional social science models of class groups in the United States are based on economic status and assume that women's economic status derives from association with men, typically fathers or husbands, and that women therefore have more compelling common interest with men of their own economic class than with women outside it.
在第一个论点中，他说的是女性的经济地位和自己家庭中的有关，从而女性的社会地位是依靠着经济地位来区分的。其实并没有提出了女性的经济是靠着男性。
第二个论点相反，指出女性的地位区分更依靠着性别而不是经济地位。