Conversely, not all chemical signals transmitted via the VNO quality as pheromones
should be:
Conversely, not all chemical signals transmitted via the VNO qualiFy as pheromones
and that will make sense

canary金絲雀
If you say \"when + PAST PARTICIPLE\", then this automatically applies to the SUBJECT of the clause to which it\'s attached.

if i say
iron accumulates rust when submerged in water
then it\'s the iron, not the rust, that\'s submerged in water.

this strikes choice (d), since the SUBJECT is \"recently documented examples\", not \"mice\" as required.

（1）当2是n的一个质因子的时候，2n的different prime numbers和n的相等，因为2这个质因子在2n中重复了两次。
eg. n=2*3*5*7; 2n=2*2*3*5*7
当2不是n的一个质因子的时候，2n的different prime numbers比n多一个
eg. n=3*5*7; 2n=2*3*5*7
（2）n与n方个数个数应当相等
eg. n=2*3*5*7; n方=2*2*3*3*5*5*7*7

Careful, vp101. The problem with B can't be "given reason," since that is used in A, too!

The issue is with "would," but this is a little tricky. For simpler clauses, it's easy: we don't use both "if" and "would" to mark the same hypothetical event. Rather, when using "if," we follow up with "would" to show the consequence:

If my car were stolen, I would be upset.

However, if our hypothetical/conditional has more than one action in it (as in the original Q), "would" may be appropriate:

If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.

So what's the difference between this and the original? You might notice that here we're using what looks like past tense ("thought"), while in A and B we're using present perfect and present, respectively. Why the difference? My example is a hypothetical (subjunctive), while the original is a simple conditional. With conditionals, we don't even use "would" for the consequence:

If Karen's sandwich falls on the floor, she will still eat it. (It's a really good sandwich.)

Since the choices here are conditional and not subjunctive, we need to leave "would" out of the sentence entirely.

转自：https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-recent-court-decision-has-qualified-a-1998-ruling-that-workers-canno-207805.html#p1593308

phenomena是复数记下了；
总结起来像是低分裤看语法，高分裤看语意？ 这题看语法的主谓一致和插入语的标点符号可排除ACD，也可以看语意是否有句间转折关系排除ACD, 具体哪种就见仁见智吧。E项应该是先看平行

感觉变成until the 1970s应该会好理解一点为什么用had enterd
很奇怪国外的论坛里此题的都有until，但国内却没有。。。

第二个选项中，one year ago和today， 预示时间只有一年

30 cents more是多30美分，不是30%

town总数不是只有2500人，文字游戏

U is the set of integers that are in S only or in T only or in both, and the number of integers in U is 10.。所以U是S, T的并集。根据公式A∪B =|A∪B| = |A|+|B| - |A∩B |(∩：重合的部分） ，6+7-10=3, 交集部分是3.

each of which was either red or black.。交换前，4黑，4红等情况都有可能。

题目里不是明确说了转基因玉米用更少的农药了吗？Farmers who tried out the genetically modified corn last season applied less insecticide to their corn fields。。为啥D还对啊

1. 工艺品应为模仿的对象，而不是去鼓励模仿，所以BC错
2. E 系表结构，工艺品是鼓励 错
3. D imitate 后没有宾语，模仿谁

1. it 无指代 AC
2. such that & during which 两个连词连用错
3. E 因果关系不成立： 不能因为金星穿过地球和太远这件事，所以行星轮廓变得清晰

平行排ADE
C 很少用从句做状语，而且they重复，且不定式与从句区别
in order to : 只能做目的状语

主系表（ABDE)和主谓宾(C)的区别
有被检测的能力 vs 可以被检测
drop vs drops: 应该强调更少用drop

错选了A，题干只强调了不会exceed current ratio，并不意味着ratio还会进一步下降

请问为什么不能用从句修饰agreement呢？

African American workers saw the need to join with White workers in seeking change despite White unionists' toleration of or support for racial discrimination.

1. 前后两句没有因果关系：建立图书馆这件事并不能让希腊文学汇集和系统化，而应该是其他动作，所以AD错
2. C ：这两句并不在一个平面上，不能并列
3. by which 里图书馆做主语，in which 图书馆做状语，所以应该是in which