..... don't break, don't stand, very passive. Because the word "no" is difficult to explain, don't regard the relationship between the two as a condition or a reason, let alone an order, it is easy to be passive. The party who can't stand or break can pull the relationship between the two to which is more important or which plays a decisive role. . . This is related to the establishment of the new system and the decisive role of the abolition of the system in the whole thing. It is likely to be introduced. Without the new system, the old system will certainly be better than no system, but with the new system, the new system can replace the old system with its own advanced nature. This is simply a concept of internal and external causes. . . The essence of the whole thing is the advanced nature of new things, which is both internal and external, so it leads to the result of the whole thing. So if I stand opposite you, once your question is to interpret the relationship between the two as time or conditions, I will immediately correct your misunderstanding of the relationship between the two and tell you which aspect plays an essential role. ~ ~ ~ As for your side, apart from never misinterpreting the relationship between the two, you mainly tell the other party from the beginning of the statement. It is impossible to assume that one of the two aspects is contradictory (it is estimated that this question can be used), which is ridiculous. Therefore, on the basis of the existence of both, although new things are advanced, the whole process cannot be completed by their advancement alone. On the contrary, the characteristics of old things are backwardness, and the elimination of old things has played a leading role. Remember, it is important to emphasize that both exist in themselves. There are too many questions. . . You have to put yourself!