发现了人工小麦的最早古迹在Sa ➕ 现在唯一生长野生小麦的地方也在sa ➡️ 人工小麦第一次被种植在sa
Ron - the evidence in the argument is based on where this strain of wheat has been found growing, NOW in modern times (as you can tell from the present perfect, "has been found growing"). if we're going to argue about the domestication of this wheat, in ancient times, then we need to know that the same conditions that prevail now also prevailed back then.
A) 1994年， V店出租比卖的多；文中说94年C地总出租量减少10000，已经把V店的出租量包括进去了，所以V店出租再多，对该地区总的出租量下滑也没有影响，所以无关，排
E) 有录像带的人经常把它们借给朋友；说明虽然V店只卖了4000，买了录像带的人会借录像带给朋友，从而导致该地出租量下滑，还是因为V店导致出租下滑，削弱了Bradd说的还有另外的解释，正确
来自RON
"evidence to suggest" and "evidence that suggests" are both acceptable in this sort of context. neither is a basis for elimination.
normally you would see "evidence that suggests..."
however, they've used "evidence to suggest..." here, in order to avoid writing evidence THAT suggests THAT xxxxx. not because it's wrong -- just because it's ugly.
E：“now with numbers five times greater than” does NOT modify the idea of "surviving a close brush with extinction"; instead, it is a much later situation, far removed from (and in considerable contrast to) the near-extinction. Therefore, a modifier is inappropriate here; a separate clause, written in a different tense (as in the correct answer), is a better solution.
扫描二维码，直接登录
E选项，other than what it is，原句后面接的不是一个句子，反而是一个碎片？