我们知道一般阅读把握到作者主要观点有助于解决主旨题、目的题，甚至有的细节题也可以通过作者态度来排掉一些选项。但也要注意一篇文章除了主要观点以及支撑主要观点的细节以外，还会出现跟主线不一致的信息。文章一开始呈现了早期观点，后面对这个观点做批判，但是在批判的过程中又although了一下，夸了一下要批判的观点，这个信息就跟整个文章要表达的主要观点方向不一致，如果直接用主要观点来套它的作用就会出错。其实会出现这样的一些表达也很正常，一个观点如果本身既无事实支撑，又不符合逻辑，这样的观点也不值得作者专门写个文章来反驳。所以在批判的过程中说说对手的好，固然有扭捏作态的嫌疑，但起码能显得作者严谨，以及让对手卸下防备更能接受作者的批判。这样的结构就让步，或者欲扬先抑。除此之外，第二种显得作者严谨的结构叫预判反对：作者知道读者可能会拿一些事实来反对作者观点，但作者先在文章里说出来，再解释一番，消解不利事实的意义。第三种叫澄清误解，就是作者本身有观点，但可能会被读者误读，作者直接写“我可不是说......”或者

我们分别来看一下让步、预判反对和澄清误解在GRE阅读里面都是个什么样子。

1. 让步：

These researchers also claim that improvements of memory overnight can be explained by the mere passage of time, rather than attributed to sleep. But recent studies of memory performance after sleep — including one demonstrating that sleep stabilizes declarative memories from future interference caused by mental activity during wakefulness — make this claim unsustainable. Certainly there are memory consolidation processes that occur across periods of wakefulness, some of which neither depend on nor are enhanced by sleep. But when sleep is compared with wakefulness, and performance is better after sleep, then some benefit of sleep for memory must be acknowledged.

文章首句就说有人认为过了一晚上，记忆变好了，不是因为晚上睡觉的作用，而仅仅是因为时间的流逝，就是不睡觉，熬通宵也能提升记忆。But以后作者转述研究说前面的观点不对，睡觉本身还是有作用的。我们期待的当然是作者展开讲睡觉怎么有作用，但是接下来作者扭捏了一下，说当然了有的记忆巩固跟睡觉那确实没关系，然后再恢复正常说但相比之下睡觉还是很有用的。有一个题目就问certainly那句话的作用，如果能理解到如上的内容当然好，如果时间比较紧，看逻辑词也能看出来，首句话是一个靶子，第二句话but转折，转折之后的certainly/admittedly之类的一般都是让步，所以选了一个说certainly这句话在concede（让步）的答案。

2. 预测反对：

In the country of Seligia where asbestos has been used extensively in construction, that use is about to be burned, because the exposure of construction workers to asbestos can cause a certain type of cancer. We can predict that the ban will result in reducing the incidence of that type of cancer in Seligia by as much as 50 percent.

It is true that more than 30 percent of the death certificates of Seligians who have died of that cancer have “construction” listed as the deceased's occupation. The cancer takes about 20 years after exposure to develop, however, and Seligians who have worked in construction commonly turn to less strenuous occupations as they age. Seligian death certificates indicate only the deceased's last occupation.

文章的意思就是作者认为有了禁令能够救助多达50%的人。第二段开始说确实只有30%多相关逝者把建筑列为自己的职业，预测和一个实际数据相差20%，这样看起来作者预测有点夸大了。但是！机智的作者预判了别人的反对，后面接着解释说，逝者职业只会列的职业，其实还有挺多人是以前干过建筑行业，后来做了别的，它们本身得病也是因为asbestos。所以禁令可以挽救直接相关的30%再加上以前相关一部分人，这样30%这个数据本身就不足以用来反对作者50%这个观点。题目问两个高亮句子的作用，答案是The first is a prediction that the argument seeks to defend, the second presents evidence that if not supplemented would cast doubt on that judgment.首个句子是论证要捍卫的预测；第二个句子呈现了一些证据，这些证据如果不进行补充说明的话，就可能会反驳作者的判断。但恰恰因为作者后面补充了，所以第二个句子呈现的事实没能驳倒作者的判断。

3. 澄清误解。

Except in special situations, human beings' battle with mosquitoes will not be won by a simple campaign to eliminate the insects. Social tradition and habits, it seems, do much to ensure continual contact between mosquitoes and people. On the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, for example, mosquitoes breed in the leaf axils of a plant called dracaena. Although dracaena is not a food plant for humans, its use as a hedge or boundary marker is deeply rooted in tradition. Here, as in other parts of the world, human behavior ensures contact and conflict between people and mosquitoes.

I am not advocating a policy of live and let live; we already know that living with mosquitoes is very unpleasant. But until we accomplish the difficult task of understanding how our habits often perpetuate--even create--our problems, efforts to resolve our battle with mosquitoes will probably fail.

这篇文章第三题是要求Select a sentence in which a potential misinterpretation of the author's position is addressed. 选一个句子，这个句子处理了对作者观点的一种可能误解。文章一开始说是人类的习俗导致会跟蚊子常有接触。后来举了个例子说你看果然就是人类自己害自己。第二段首句说“我可不是在鼓吹自己活也让别人活凑合过；......”这句话就是典型的澄清误解，读的时候能明显感觉到作者的求生欲。作者说我只是在讲会这么惨的原因，并不等于我认为我们只能这么惨下去。所以答案就是这句话。