那根据图形背景原则，为什么B选项，明明discovered和named延续时间短，be in the middle of the belt of asteroids延续时间长，却反而是延续时间长的作主句呢？

B选项通过取非：Kitchen不会冠名其他产品。→ Kitchen会冠名其他产品，而前提只有专家保证the cookware这个产品，其它产品没有被保证，那么其它产品可能会损坏Kitchen声誉（形成第三要素）。

如果说B的取非推论太多，那么对比C，“若其它厨具发现这个杂志不再有吸引力了，那么将不会在这个杂志上投放广告“这句也是推论呀，其它厨具认为Kitchen不再有吸引力不一定就不会投放广告呀 【比如：毕竟Kitchen对老百姓（也就是Kitchen的消费者）有吸引力呀】

请毕老师指出我的问题:(

核心词是那个 market!

A错是因为有歧义吧

老师，“简化的定语从句“和“伴随状语”的区分是不是靠句意？因为这句我没看句意直接理解成了伴随，所以选错了。。。

Similarly, the wrong answer (D) seems to imply that EACH country is somehow as 'varied' as EACH other country. That's not the intended meaning, which is that the SET of countries is varied.

If I'm in San Francisco, then sentence #2 means, strangely enough, that I get mail from cities that are all exactly 3,082 miles away (the distance from SF to Providence). Sentence #1 implies no such thing.

There's a very subtle difference in meaning, although Stacey is correct that the main issue is that of redundancy/wordiness. But consider the difference between these two sentences, which would illustrate the point:
(1) I get mail from cities as far away as Providence.
(2) I get mail from cities that are as far away as Providence.

C选项是错在automobile-related jobs的复数么

差点选C

even if the problem said "... each a product of its regional influences", it would still be wrong.

"Regional influences" are vague forces—basically, like the culinary culture of an entire geographical area. These forces don't emanate from, or belong to, any particular person or thing, so it's impossible for any construction of the form "its/their/____'s influences" to make sense here.

这里的then和later连用应该算是redundancy吧？

作为 secretary of labor的逻辑主语必须是人，也就是Frances Perkins，直接排除掉ABCE

Twice做限定语，后面直接加数量类的名词 Twice that number
不能选DE， 是因为从前文推不出来Truck有多少量，所以何来Twice as many

主语是the bird 所以是单数，排除A&E
通过什么方式用by，而且我个人觉得如果用with可以引起歧义，因为可以和nest连接，排除A&B
as做“当”讲
D项and its flying 没有对象和其平行

B和L的不同原文从一开始就说了，但是没有说的那么明显，先是批评了B，说她little effort，那相反L就是more。

More importantly, she shows that the debate itself depends on frame of reference

我觉得我的脑回路也是清奇。犯错的原因正是因为我认为作者对比 P 和大众的想法，并指出 P 的想法是对的，所以 P 的例子就是来反证大众是错的。。。。

A: "enough for xxx to happen" is a threshold. this is going to be some EXACT boundary at which something starts to happen.
paired with "quite possibly", this creates a contradiction.

B选项中的their用法不对

不懂AC