The use of as Here is a sentence that I really cannot translate: The local production is as similar to the original production as is possible in a modern theater. I am really confused about the two "as" here. I have heard such expression of "as similar as possible", but in the example above, there is an "is" following to the second "as". Can anyone explain to me the grammatical role the "as "plays in the sentence? Really appreciate it !

a confused sentence <style type="text/css"> p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica} span.s1 {letter-spacing: 0.0px} span.s2 {text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px} </style>

"It’s not like the makers of those violins were any more skilled than their modern-day counterparts."

Does this sentence mean that those violin makers are not skilled as modern- day counterparts Or that those violin makers are not more skilled than modern-day counterparts.

I think the meaning should be the latter, but I find a explanation about the structure of " not ... any more than..." say that it means "Neither of two things are adj." The explanation seems contradict with how I translate the sentence above.

For example," The heart is no more intelligent than the stomach, for they are both controlled by the brain.

The meaning is stomach and heart are not intelligent.

the usage of preposition before noun Here's the sentence: Executive announced plans Wednesday to cut the cost. I think that "on " is needed before "Wednesday", but not only this sentence, but I saw many such sentences in the dictionary. Can any grammatical rule explain this phenomenon?

a confused sentence Here's the sentence: Toxic minerals would firstly be absorbed by roots but later relocated to the stem and leaves. A harvest of the shoots would remove the toxic compounds off site to be burned or composted to recover the metal for the industrial use. I thought the meaning of the second sentence is that shoots remove the toxic compounds and the toxic compounds will be burned or to be composted. But it turns out that " to be burned" and " to be composted" is related to the shoots. So I'm a little confused. In regardless of the prior sentence, regardless of the context, only focus on the grammar, when " to be burned" and "to be composted" is placed in that position, it is more likely to refer to the toxic compounds while it can also refer to the shoots. Right?

A question about the usage of article Here's an example: The roles of parent and child have been reversed. My question is why there are no articles before 'parent' and 'child' respectively? I thought the right way can be either that the roles of a parent and a child have been reversed or that the roles of parents and children have been reversed. By the way, if you can specify the usage of articles, I cannot appreciate it too much.

A confused sentence Here's a sentence which I am confused about the meaning of. As follows, Because of the extent to which a college degree is accepted by employers as a proof of competence in a given field, college graduates are more likely to receive more job offers. I cannot understand the meaning of the part before the comma. If I delete the "the extent to which", will the meaning be the same?

A confused sentence

Here's a sentence which I am confused about the meaning. As follows,

Because of the extent to which a college degree is accepted by employers as a proof of competence in a given field, college graduates are more likely to receive more job offers.

I cannot understand the meaning of the part before the comma. 

If I delete the "the extent to which", will the meaning be the same?

A question about a subordinate clause with 'which' There is a sentence: Usually, the abilities to compromise, negotiate and resolve conflicts are better to learn in a group work, which is impossible to learn while work independently. I thought the word after 'which' should be 'are' instead of 'is' . I think the 'which' denotes 'abilities' mentioned at the beginning rather the prior sentence because if it is in this case, the meaning of the subordinate clause is wrong.

get sb familiar with I want to know whether the sentence " it gets me familiar with the products" is correct or not? I'm alway confused about the use of "get sb+ adj." "have sb + adj." and " make sb+ adj." Can you give me analysis of the usage of these phases or can you give me a suggestion how can I figure them out?