there's nothing redundant about "and also".

"and also" is redundant if it appears in the same sentence as "both"; this may be what you're thinking about.

i.e.,
X and also Y --> totally fine
both X and also Y --> redundant (and therefore incorrect)

"as well as" is NOT a replacement for "and".

“A leading figure in the Scottish Enlightenment是同位语，显然应该是修饰一个人的，而不是“书”，”

* if you say "subject + clause + BY VERBing", then "by VERBing" must explain HOW the main clause occurred.
i prepared for the test by reviewing takeaways on the MGMAT forums.
* if you say "subject + clause + IN VERBing", then subject + clause must be an ACTUAL PART of the action of VERBing.
i solved all the problems in OG12 in preparing for the GMAT.

Generalization 后面that 同位语从句修饰这个整个概括的内容。 Idiomatic usage. In the phrase 'little of X', the X has to be a singular quantity. If it's plural (like 'differences'), then you have to use few.
There was very little food left over at the end of the party.
There were very few crab cakes left over at the end of the party.
in this sentence, "little" functions as a noun. you can use "much" in the same way: there is much that is different...

原文：更多交往导致更好精神技能。 b：影响精神技能的药物导致社会孤独。削弱

这题是因果倒置

less than 2.8% or ["2.8% is lower than the percent for last quarter]. some uncountable nouns are plural. for instance, "taxes" is a plural noun, but the concept that it represents is uncountable (taxes are not things that you can separate into one, two, three,...)so, you would say my taxes are less than they were last year, not [i]my taxes are fewer than they were last year[i].

this situation -- a state that is ongoing only until another past event, and which is directly related to that past event -- is precisely the kind of situation that requires the past perfect tense, so the sentence should contain "had expected", as in the first two choices. 另外c里it指代错误= profits

原文：因：产生抗金属的酸，使土壤金属产生惰性；果：可以在这个土壤中存活。 疑问？是否其他可以在这个土壤中生存的植物也是因为产生酸呢？

哦哦哦哦，这道题我理解错了，我以为他们想要wider seat什么的是想多花一些钱升级到商务舱，哎呀呀，原来是提高经济仓的质量

说明结果问题，果因推理，结果是，单票出席率高，套票出席率低，原因是什么，每张票便宜不唯一理由，没有直接建立关系。表演前开始买，出席率很可能高

第一个陈述的是environmentalists’的观点，第二个陈述的是economist’s的观点，开头Economist:，这段话是Economist说的。我把D的前后两个看成一样的了…以为它在搞笑…

A选项：举出一个琥珀在之前如何被误解的例子：P的看法是正确的，没有误解琥珀。

E选项：学者首次研究植物的趋避效果是在1950s：1950s的时候学者推断resin的作用是抵制或吸引昆虫，但没有提是不是第一次。

increase by！！！！！

C选项：是driving force：在新技术出来之后，学者才确认病毒是driving force，而不是之前。

E选项：解释为啥大型生产设备经常不能帮助制造商实现规模经济：文章主要在强调无形资产的重要性。

B选项：主要由饮食专家授粉：没提。

D选项：文章展示了一些近期发现以此挑战某理论：为什么柱状仙人掌扩大了它的传粉者队伍：文章是在讨论why扩大，但这里并没有新观点在挑战旧观点。