seem, appear, look是表象系动词，可以直接作be动词使用，表示是，如：
She didn't appear surprised at the news at all.
此外还有固定搭配：appear to be/to have been，it appears that，如：
She appeared to be in her late thirties. 看样子她快四十岁了。
It appears that there has been a mistake. 看来有一个差错。
what是个名词，可以替换成the thing，what appears to be ……，看上去是……的东西
描述的是一段时期的平均温度，用between/and，不用from/to；如果是增长、下降，用from/to
这里是一群科学家一起做的可以看成是（一个）预测，而不是每个科学家各自做一个预测，所以group做单数用。如：
A group of scientists works in the lab.一起、作为一个群体在实验室工作
A group of scientists go their houses after work.各回各家
这里只能用will不能用would，因为前面if没有用虚拟；如果没有这个if从句，用would表示排放最好不要上升之意，比用will好
if did/were to, then would/should/might/could; if had, then would have; if should, then would
Choice C – This choice has verb tense error. Element 2 uses past perfect tense. Whenever past perfect tense is used, there should be a related event in simple past tense to indicate the intended sequencing of event. In this sentence there is no such event and hence use of past perfect tense is incorrect. Furthermore, this choice appears to be wordy. Two relative pronouns referring to same noun – growth seems wordy.
as is the case with noun，sth……，就如……一样
As is the case with sth不需要精确的相关和平行，不需要像like/unlike一样，主句主语是sth的类比对象，如：As was the case in post-world-war-i germany, hyperinflation has been causing general unrest and panic throughout country x.
比较对象要一致、
Ron: you shouldn\'t precede that with anything - such as the adverb (almost instantly) in choice (e). in order for the comparison to be clear, you MUST begin the main clause with the item that provides the other half of the comparison.
there\'s no difference.
\"(almost) instantly\" is an adverb.
there\'s only one action that could be modified by this adverb -- i.e., \"could summon...\" -- so the
as with的用法：(像，如同)
as with后面不能接名词， 要用As with必须有一个条件，就是句中要有一个句子与其平行。
比如 With......As with.....才可以用As with.
否则只可以用 As is the case with....... As is the case with就没有什么限制了。
C，where引导的地点状语改变了句子重心，
D，gathering做伴随修饰，很好
first, examine the split between 'more ergonomic' and just 'ergonomic'. in this case, we must preserve the meaning of the original statement: the new design is more ergonomic than the old design. if we change this to just 'ergonomic', we're attaching an implication that the old design simply wasn't ergonomic (and that the new design, by contrast, is) - an unacceptable implication. that gets rid of answer choices c, d, and e right there.
another item to examine is parallelism. in this case, in the construction 'X rather than Y' (or its analogues, 'X and not Y' and 'more X than Y'), items X and Y must be parallel.
choice a: conforming... rather than flaunting... <-- good parallelism!
choice b: to the body's shape and not to flaunting shape <-- logically nonparallel and also awkward
choice c: can't use 'more' together with 'and not to' (these are exclusive constructions, sort of like 'both' and 'as well as': if you use one, then you can't use the other), so we don't need to consider the parallelism in the first place.
choice d: can't use 'more' together with 'rather than'; also, bad parallelism between to the body's shape and shape flaunted...
choice e: more to the shape... than flaunting... <-- nonparallel
in fact, the winning choice (a) is the ONLY choice that properly compares 'conforming' and 'flaunting' in parallel. all of the other constructions also change the meaning of the sentence via their alterations of the words.
the correct answer here is still pretty ugly, so let's criticize the four incorrect choices.
choice a:
faulty comparison:
'unlike many u.s. cities, ... the river in san antonio...' --> can't compare cities to a river
choice b:
comparison isn't so good:
the second part should start directly with 'the river' (instead of 'in san antonio the river...'), so that the comparison is more clear.
much more importantly, poor use of the relative pronoun 'which':
'...cities in the united states, which is no longer the focal point...'
relative pronouns like which, by default, refer to the noun that's closest to the left, which in this case is the united states. therefore, this relative pronoun is used in a way that's either ambiguous (if you allow it to potentially refer to other nouns) or just plain wrong (if you follow the rule strictly).
choice c:
faulty comparison again
'the river...' is being compared to san antonio.
choice d:
drastic change in meaning
this sentence has completely gotten rid of any reference to the concept of 'no longer'. while all the other sentences say that things have changed, this sentence presents the situation as if it's always been that way.
扫描二维码，直接登录
用with 或of会使介词的修饰对象发生改变，还得看句意。with 结构表伴随，修饰 built，而 of 结构修饰的是 scale。传送版上对这题的讨论：http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-578062-3-1.html