1.提炼P&C
目的：减少地面碰撞的频率
方案：ground crews additional training
2.判断推理方式：方案推理
3.评估预判：
CQ1：方案可行性问题：培训crew后，可以实现减少飞机碰撞的目标吗？
CQ2：方案可操作性问题：培训crew的方案可行吗？现实吗？
CQ3：方案副作用问题：培训crew后，是否会出现什么副作用？
4.将选项和CQ进行匹配
CQ1：C选项

-------更正-------
1.提炼P&C
（因）P：bicycle helmets protected 太阳穴（z重要）,
（果）C：the risk of serious head injury in bicycle accidents would be greatly reduced
2.判断推理方式：因果推理
3.评估预判：
CQ1：干扰因素问题：
CQ2：因果联系问题：
4.将选项和CQ进行匹配
找CQ
CQ1：D选项，

1.提炼P&C
（因）P：bicycle helmets protected this area,
（果）C：the risk of serious head injury in bicycle accidents would be greatly reduced
2.判断推理方式：因果推理
3.评估预判：
CQ1：干扰因素问题：
CQ2：因果联系问题：
4.将选项和CQ进行匹配
找CQ
CQ1：A选项

同样的，列出xyz > 0的所有x,y,z的正负组合，再用(1) (2)分别去筛，(1) (2)都不能使结果唯一的话，对剩下的结果查重，看二者的交集是否能使结果唯一。

此时Find 的控制力很弱，使用find that而不用find sth to do .
代词they的指代对象在语法上只能是researchers，因为volunteers’已经是所有格了，变为了形容词，不能被代词指代。

将xy + z是奇的情况下，x,y,z全部的可能的奇偶组合列出来。再分别用条件1、条件2去过滤这些组合，看剩下的组合里x的奇偶性是否能确定。
解法虽然简单，但确实很需要清晰的逻辑。考验草稿纸的时候到啦。

1.提炼P&C
（因）P：R赢得了新轮胎的投标
（果）C：投标能为公司创收
2.判断推理方式：果因推理
3.评估预判：
CQ1：干扰因素问题：
CQ2：因果联系问题：
4.将选项和CQ进行匹配
CQ2：D选项，论证了新轮胎投标能创收的因果联系。

应该是提供了更大范围的福利吧，才能够让员工自己选择自己最需要的福利

1.提炼P&C
（果）P：P的labor productivity比V更高
（因）C：Parland的工业比Vergia的工业更加技术先进。
2.判断推理方式：果因推理
3.评估预判：
CQ1：说明结果问题：
CQ2：因果联系问题：
4.将选项和CQ进行匹配
CQ1：C选项

ultimate goal强调了是最终目的，也就是说不是被主句conduct survey直接影响，因此是不能用不定式的。

减少的只能是顾客数量，不能减少顾客。

普通的名词做定语和所有格定语还是有区别的，例如：woman teacher和teacher of woman（或woman’s teacher）。前者是“女教师”的意思，后者则是“女人拥有的老师”。也就是说，名词做定语，表示的是其修饰的名词的一个子集；而所有格则表示一种拥有关系。

convert sth to do
do 的逻辑主语是sth
C选项：that will run...是trucks的定语从句，那么主干成分为“UPS转变卡车”，但逻辑上来说，应该是转变汽油卡车变成天然气卡车（双宾为主干成分，而定语不是）。

1、as表“因为”时候可引导从句
2、while只能表示同时或者转折

目标：今年灰烬减到上一年的一半
方案：燃烧的垃圾控制到上一年的一半
这样就清晰为什么不选E了， 因为题目已经给出了规定，燃烧的垃圾一定是上一年的一半，
This year city services will separate for recycling enough refuse to reduce the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated to half of last year's number.
就算总量比上一年多，政府也会把拿去烧的垃圾控制到上一年的一半，所以E其实是没涉及到方案的

The sentence contains a comparison introduced by not so much. However, the comparison is executed with correct idiomatic usage only in one of the answer options. As written, the comparison not so much . . . but . . . is incorrect. This is also true in choices D and E. A. incorrect for the reason stated above. B. because of is not parallel with the results of.
C. Correct. This uses the comparison not so much . . . as . . . correctly and correctly makes because of parallel with because of.

选项A：首先，since应改为over。介词since身后只能接时间点而不能接时间段。例如：
since 1989, since today
over身后通常接时间段，例如：
over 3 days, over one month.
因此，由于the past few years是一个时间段，所以不能用since来连接。由于主语的核心词movement是一个单数名词，需将have改为has。

The sentence tells us that an excavation yielded fragments of human figures as well as 7 intact statues. However, as written, the sentence implies that these 7 intact statues were actually fragments. This contradiction is presumably not intended.

In the sentence as written, the singular subject the disappearance of . . . and the plural verb seem do not agree in number. It does not make sense to say that the disappearance is inevitably doomed; presumably the sentence intends to suggest that the lifestyles themselves are inevitably doomed or perhaps that the disappearance of . . . these lifestyles is inevitable.

be liable to do 有做某事的倾向，后面通常是不好的事情，liable通常是指法律上或者义务上的那种倾向；
be likely to do 很可能做某事，用法更general一些

Liable 'as per custom' is used only to denote some bad things. It is not used in such cases as when somebody turns to some normal course in the ordinary of business of life. First dump C and D. In E, the pronoun 'its' has no antecedent. A and B use correctly the appositive 'conflicts' to pinpoint the possible damage by the feuds and therefore are the contenders. B uses both 'when' and likely will' for a simultaneous occurrence of the cause and effect.