做错的题基本上都是因为没看懂：）

C的解释不对，C是倒装句，正确语序为Its eastward orientation and overall plan, but also the artifacts, such as glass-oil lamp fragments, found at the site were indicating that a ruined structure found at Aqaba, Jordan, was probably a church.
1. 单独使用but also不对 2.were indicating时态不恰当

A选项：in its eastward orientation和by its overall plan不平行，两者身前的介词应该均用by。由于这是一个被动语态的句子，所以只有用by才能表示出它们是indicate的逻辑主语。被动语态规定，只有by后才是动作的逻辑主语，例如：
(1) Lunch was eaten by me
(2) **Lunch was eaten in me
句(1)表示，“我”是吃午饭的发出者；句(2)则完全没有此意。
C选项：本选项的主语是一个动名词短语，即，indicating that a ruined structure found at Aqaba, Jordan, was probably a church，这个主语虽然长，但是是单数名词，谓语动词应该也用单数的was，而不是were。

cite a specific case理解成了具体的企业案例，所以没选。其实指的是“实际情况”

在C和e之间犹豫了

C选项：本选项是一个现在分词短语。做定语的现在分词短语应该就近修饰名词an individual。

tentative 实验性的，假设的
treatise 论文，专著，论述

D谎言引起情绪反应，情绪反应引发无意识反馈，但谎言和无意识反馈之间是没有直接联系的，即其他事情引起的情绪反应都能引起无意识反馈，本题中没有局限于谎言引起的。

逗号不能连接两个句子，需要连词，而nevertheless此时放在句中而不是放在逗号之后，是做副词的。

She was less successful after she emigrated to New York than she had been in her native Germany.
黑体是前半句的状语, than 后面省略了successful, 但没省谓语 had been, 因与前半句谓语不同，不省是为了表明状态的先后
实际应是：
she was less successful (after she emigrated to New York) than she had been (successful) (in her native Germany).
由此更可以看出比较的不是状语，而是成功的程度，也就是全句，全句所要表达的意思。

impair 损害 削弱

读选项啊！
severely 严格的

after此时是连词后跟句子，emigrating不是一个持续动作，错误

时态不同，则不能省略动词

事实与假设相比---黑洞吃太少所以放太少。改进---实证表明假设的黑洞吃的量比实际高。

A more reasonable position is that Melville is a different kind of writer, who held, and should be judged by, presuppositions about fiction that are quite different from James’s. ---should be judged by presuppositions about fiction.

B选项：首先，with planets orbiting them是一个独立主格结构，其应改为修饰stars的定语从句。这是因为，独立主格是状语，修饰的是discover这个句子。在逻辑上，不能说“伴随着星星被环绕，科学家们发现了17颗星星”，而应该是“科学家发现了17颗被环绕的星星”。其次，最后的that were about the size of Jupiter是定语从句，最近的名词为them，但在逻辑上，这个定语从句应该修饰的名词是planets。
再次，that were这里是过去时，容易被认为是这些行星“过去”和木星一样大，但现在可能不一样了，这是不合逻辑的。应该用一般现在时表示一个客观事实。

感觉是 justify the explanation的关键，如果是为了补充加强这个explanation对这个现象的支持，就是选B了。如果是证明这个explanation合理还是选D。。

不要被第一句turning point迷惑了，本文的总体基调还是emphasizing that those areas of biology most in the public eye had depended on historical explanation，然后第二段讲科学家为什么认为historical explanation合理，第三段讲如何document historical explanation convincingly。

e跟文章立场一直，我觉得可以说是排除他因？