如果改动很少就能纠正错误，就别大改如DE，容易改变句意。

这个解释里面是不是错了，A选项的解释说 “另外， all their fellows和 a close relative不搭配。不能是所有它们的伙伴是一个近亲。” ， 但是正确答案D中，就是这么表达的呀，“ the ants consider all their fellows to be close relatives ”， B， C选项的错误只有similar 这个点吧，E选项的错误是limit的单复数弄错了吧，应该是limit，

答案是c

答案应该是c

E: From Option E we can infer that if a state is spending lot of money on roads then it has inadequate road systems. If the state's road condition had improved because of the amount of money invested by the state, then after say 3 or 4 years the state's spending on road system should have decreased. But the question stem says that this state has been spending more than other states from the past 6 years. So, there is a good chance that the roads of this state are still in a bad state.

A: The question stem says that this state is spending more money per mile compared to other states. This amount is relative to the amount of money spent by other states. But, the statement doesn't say whether the money that was spent by this state was sufficient to get the road system to a adequate condition.

老师，同样问，这是2个年份的价格做比较，而不是2个年份比较，比的价格，所以应该用所有格，为什么不是据此判断呢？

老师，Ving短语和that从句在修饰名词时有什么区别？如果C中protect改成protects,那么B和C谁更好？

我倒是觉得B是错在根本没有缓解拥堵上。。。

原来是so....that结构啊，没看到。

just as....so

in which 里的which不是应该就近指代cuts and sprains么，怎么感觉解析的意思是指代到inflammatory response

题目有隐含条件x+y=1，没考虑到，做错了。

E除了时态错误，well established修饰有问题吗？

因为and在未划线部分，就默认了both使用的正确性，这是不对的！

C选项 to be able 表示将来，逻辑错误；D，its ability变成具体指代，不合逻辑

为什么不是果因推理呀

个人观点。有没有可能是因果。
有些人会cheat，（少付钱或者不给钱）---> 咖啡店亏钱。 问削弱。
方向有两个：1. 他因导致咖啡店亏。2. C和E的关系出现问题（i.e. C发生E没有发生；E发生C没有发生；CE没有关系）
这里很明显1不make sense。所以是方向2CE关系出现问题。
看选项，只有D符合，就算很多人cheat发生了，大部分利润来自于别的地方，咖啡店也不会亏钱。

请老师指教。

以往和今年的区别

虚拟语气应用were而不是was。