A、part of a deal修饰$950 million是错误的，应该修饰color-printing division
BC、错误同A，同位语修饰了$950 million

同位语，若概念名词，则指代前面整句。
同位语，若具体名词，则只能修饰最近的名词，如(B)(C)，是950 million的同位语，错误
D、to make的主语是the company，如果以此为主语，后面应该将it改成itself 原句D是it will purchase…to make it …公司将购买…使公司变为…意思不对
E、正确 that修饰a deal

B, it weighs only 8.1 grams, far lighter than four quarters, 这里是主语和主语比较。
B的前面部分拆解开来就是：S was used more as a substitute for four quarters than as the dollar bill，这里要表达的意思是S是four quarters的替代品而不是dollar bill的替代品，它只能替代4个1/4美元的硬币，而不能替代美元钞票，因为纸币比S coin更轻。

C, it weighs only 8.1 grams, far less than four quarters, 这里是宾语和宾语比较，暗示four quarters拥有不同的宾语，ok

ensure和must语义重复
在过去的时态描述将要发生的事情要用would

C plants an invasive 注意划线外的句子！

You could either say \"... make it any more likely that a plant will become ...\" or \"... make a plant any more likely to become...\" You CANNOT combine them to get \"...make a plant any more likely that it will become ...\" That is, if you use \'plant\' as the object of \'make\

第一个意思不对，变成了methods having gone unregulated

抓住核心词，food supply不是原因！food supply was dwindling才是原因

dwindling 只做一个修饰成分，而语义上应该作为对象，因此A错误。

2）suffer from后面可以接动词的名词化，如Many companies are suffering from a shortage of skilled staff. 但A中were suffering from dwindling food supplies的主结构是were suffering from food supplies，不是在遭受食物供应，是在遭受食物供应的短缺，应该说were suffering from a dwindling of food supplies或者were suffering because food supplies were dwindling

c选项和But while nutritionists usually advise people to avoid high-sugar and high-glycemic-index foods, despite any nutritional benefits they may confer,这句话冲突了

E因果倒置
B错在原文没有否定其他因素的影响，结论中说 self-control is ONE factor

D，restricted to deeper bodies of water做状语，修饰黄脚蛙长大成年这个动作，属于比较的一部分，但前面被比较的内容并不包含被比较的蛙是不是被限制在更浅的水里了，比较内容不适当；

Conclusion:
This [that no aesthetic evaluation of a work of art is sound if it is based even in part on data about the cultural background of the artist] opinion is clearly false.
是circular reasoning，因为原命题和逆否命题正确性是一样的。第二题用逆否命题正确来证明原命题正确，是循环论证。

he author's conclusion is that the models can't be tested because any inaccuracy would be blamed on flaws in the model. B remedies this by connecting improvements in the models with improved rates of accuracy with the predictions.

Researchers several decades ago, using less sensitive technology, were able to detect the same drugs in another town's public drinking water. This implies that the drug levels in that town were higher than those recently detected in City X's drinking water. Given that there have been no discernible health effects in this previous case, this lends support to the researchers' reasoning regarding City X.

the possible site of a workshop就对了！！！B故意用什么语法have been造成“丑”的假象

一定是盲了。。

呵呵。 眼睛不用可以考虑捐了。。。