A,B,E,的主句是"0the court ruled the club"，法庭不会管理一个俱乐部，所以排除，D中的ruled the court ...是一个修饰词，修饰的是逗号前面的educational group，错。只剩C

“Still, Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.“ 这句话难道不是指K也觉得人对物种灭绝负有不可推卸的责任吗？前面K自己又说人不是主要原因
是文章有问题还是我的理解有问题，我觉得K在自相矛盾！！！！

是 income 而不是本加利

GMATCLUB上关于（2）充分的两种解释：

nC0+ nC1+nC2+......+nCn=16
2n2n=16

---OR
Any element can either present in the subset or not.
Hence total number of subsets- 2*2*2...n times= 2n。

这个题好迷惑啊……那这个表格的意义在哪里，就是告诉你原料零件充足吗

不要把题目想复杂了

occasional 偶尔的

c选项从句就有两个谓语了，中间要有连词隔开才行

没有完全理解选项的意思

没理清逻辑链。

m=1-m

楼下是骗子 给了钱过阵子不通知就被单删了 我自己又买了课…

L13548060297是骗子 给了钱过一阵就单删我了…

单词，primarily 意思搞错了

D选项：the present tense (e.g., "are reduced") is used for 2 things:
1/ GENERALITIES that are true regardless of the timeframe (Blood flows through veins and arteries)
2/ STATES or CONDITIONS (NOT events or actions!) that are true AT PRESENT (I am happy)

this present tense CANNOT be used for EVENTS or ACTIONS. if an event is happening right now, then you use "is/are __ing". (The factory is operating at reduced capacity because its machines are undergoing routine maintenance.)

__

in general, it's a good idea to consider only MAJOR verb-tense issues. you absolutely will NOT need SUBTLE verb-tense differences to solve the problems.

this difference is pretty plain—"are reduced" is written in a tense that can NEVER be used for something like that (a single instance; an event). that's not "subtle".

result可以做动词，表示产生，结果，导致

"labor" is not a living thing. The term here refers to the working class or unionized sector of the economy

there's no such thing as "x received something BY y"; it would have to be "x received something FROM y"

the issue here is just that "labor's unqualifying support" is just ridiculously awkward. this is one of those things that native speakers will understand almost instinctively, but that is nevertheless nearly impossible to explain to non-natives.

in general, i'm loath to use apostrophe + "s" for anything but humans, animals, and the like. this is definitely NOT a hard and fast rule, but i've noticed that it's fairly consistent across most usage.
thus, "an ape's vocal tract" is preferred to "the vocal tract of an ape", but "the colors of the mural" is better than "the mural's colors".

in general, if you get to pick between the apostrophe+s construction and the "of" construction, and the possessor isn't a living thing, i'd go with the latter.
but by all means try to eliminate based on other things first.

the REAL issue, though, is "unqualifying" -- this is incorrect.
"unqualifying" means "not meeting some sort of standard for qualification".
the intended meaning here is "unqualified", which means "without any sort of restriction or reservation".

--

the past perfect makes perfect (heh) sense here. the idea is that, lately, the women have been receiving support from labor.
the present participial form "are receiving" would also make sense, but remember that you aren't supposed to change the meaning of the sentence without a good reason for doing so.

linger逗留，拖延

错选了C
注意只能用be dated to或be dated at，dated at X old; dated to X ago