GRE阅读中有过半的文章会存在“质疑”这种关系，也就是一方挑另一方观点的毛病。
所以“质疑”这也是同学们在GRE阅读备考过程中所必须要掌握的一种超核心逻辑！
本文将非常精炼的概括出这个逻辑中，同学们值得重视的一些关键点。
原则 1
一个说话者永远不可能质疑自己已经认可的想法
比如，如果文章中已经明确写到“万蜀黍人品很差”，则下文绝不可能写“万蜀黍人品不差”。
因为当文章中明确写到“万蜀黍人品很差”这句话是，这个判断已经被说话者（即作者）认可，则他绝不可能自相矛盾。
什么时候作者才能够反驳一个观点？
只有这个观点不是作者自己认可时才可能被作者质疑，那在文章中它必须以开放判断的方式呈现。
比如 “万蜀黍看起来人品很差”，
比如 “有人觉得万蜀黍人品很差”
比如 “乍一看，万蜀黍人品很差”，
比如 “万蜀黍可能人品很差”。
很多同学习惯于日常生活中的表达不严谨，他们会觉得只要出现了转折，后文就是在质疑前文。
但其实，“有人觉得万蜀黍人品很好，但其实他人品很差”叫质疑，而“万蜀黍人品很好，但周围的人却普遍不喜欢他”就不能叫质疑，因为“万蜀黍人品很好”在这个例子当中是被作者认可的判断，“但”后面的内容并不会起到攻击这个判断的作用。
原则 2
“质疑一个观点”≠“认为一个观点错”
例：主流观点认为万蜀黍很优秀，因为他GRE考得很好。可是GRE好不好和优秀不优秀没有必然关系啊。
问：划线部分的功能是什么？
标准答案：质疑前文观点，即质疑“万蜀黍优秀”这个观点。
很多同学不敢选这样的选项，因为他们觉得划线句子不能表明万蜀黍不优秀。此时，大家必须要修正对“质疑”这个词的理解，当我们质疑一个观点时，并不需要认为这个观点真的错，只需要表达“这个观点并没有充足的依据，所以我们并不能认为它一定对”。
在刚才这个例文当中，划线句子质疑前文的方式是否定了GRE考得好与优秀之间的联系，意味着前文的“万蜀黍优秀”的观点并没有得到证据的充足支持，所以这个观点已经被“质疑”了，无论后文的质疑本身是否证明万蜀黍真的不优秀。
原则 3
阅读“质疑”这种逻辑时，绝不能仅停留在表面意思，必须理解这个质疑在说话者的逻辑体系下凭什么成立，因为GRE的阅读文章都是凝缩的文章，它不会把完整的逻辑链条全部呈现出来。
例：主流观点认为万蜀黍很优秀。可是，他GRE考得很差啊。
这两句话是严重的省略，后文质疑前文但是并没有把质疑的结论说出来，也没有把质疑背后的隐藏逻辑说出来。
完整版本应该是：
主流观点认为万蜀黍很优秀。可是，他GRE考得很差啊，而优秀的人GRE不应该考得差啊，所以万蜀黍并不见得优秀。
那么我们在阅读时，是要去理解作者整个逻辑脉络的，我们需要主动的意识到后文真正要表达的是对前文“万蜀黍优秀”的攻击，而绝不仅仅是陈述他“GRE考得差”，以及我们要理解在作者的认知当中，之所以“GRE考得差”可以实现对“万蜀黍优秀”的攻击，是因为作者认为“优秀”与“GRE考得好”应该有关系。
真题练习
Becker hypothesizes that the mass extinction 250 million years ago was caused by environmental consequences from a meteorite or comet impact like the one that many think caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Evidence of the latter impact includes the unusually high iridium content in European clay sediments dating from the period. Iridium is a rare metal that comes mostly from meteorites, interplanetary dust, and other cosmic debris. An iridium spike has also been found in 250-million-year-old sediments, but it is only about a tenth as large as the one in the 65-million-year-old sediments. This finding could imply a modest-size meteorite, not one big enough to cause a worldwide extinction. But some meteorites contain very little iridium, and comets, which are mostly ice, contain none.
1. If the mass extinction 250 million years ago was caused by an impact, then, according to the passage, what must be true of the object that hit Earth?
A. It was a comet.
B. It was a modest-size meteorite.
C. It was significantly different in composition from the meteorite that hit Earth 65 million years ago.
D. Its impact was not associated with the iridium spike in the 250-million-year-old sediments.
E. It was bigger than the object that hit Earth 65 million years ago.
2. The author of the passage mentions “European clay sediments” primarily in order to
A. explain how evidence of an impact 65 million years ago was initially discovered
B. make a distinction between different kinds of evidence scientists use to determine the cause of a mass extinction
C. suggest that evidence pointing to an impact 250 million years ago is as compelling as evidence pointing to an impact 65 million years ago
D. help to rule out explanations other than an impact for a mass extinction 65 million years ago
E. identify some of the grounds for concluding that a mass extinction 65 million years ago was caused by an impact
3. Which of the following best describes the function of the last sentence of the passage?
A. It corrects a misinterpretation of Becker’s hypothesis
B. It suggest an alternative to Becker’s hypothesis
C. It provides information that could reconcile Becker’s hypothesis with certain evidence.
D. It clarifies a distinction central to Becker’s hypothesis.
E. It illustrates a paradox central to Becker’s hypothesis.
答案
点击下方空白处获得答案
CEC
文章解析
让我直接来解读一下每句话你在阅读时本应读出的实际效果。
第一句：
Becker hypothesizes that the mass extinction 250 million years ago was caused by environmental consequences from a meteorite or comet impact [B的观点，文章要争论的核心内容：250的灭绝是impact造成] like the one that many think caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago
类比: 就像65的灭绝也被认为是impact造成，读这句话的时候必须意识到文章的讨论重点是250的灭绝，不是65的灭绝，这是这个句子的句法决定的，看清楚B的观点主句是哪部分.
第二句：
Evidence of the latter impact includes the unusually high iridium content in European clay sediments dating from the period.
65的证据是I含量高, 目前看不清方向，继续往下读
第三句：
Iridium is a rare metal that comes mostly from meteorites, interplanetary dust, and other cosmic debris.
解释了第二句话为什么被说出来，为什么要提I含量，因为I含量和impact有关系。但目前我们的困惑是，这和250灭绝有什么关系，我们关注的不是65，而是250。
第四句：
An iridium spike has also been found in 250-million-year-old sediments, [看到这里，明白了为什么前面会有那个类比，因为250也有I，所以怀疑250也是impact的结果] but it is only about a tenth as large as the one in the 65-million-year-old sediments.
这里是很多人阅读崩溃的地方，他们以为这里是在单纯谈论I含量。
不！所有这些讨论都是要围绕灭绝是不是impact造成的这个问题进行的。这句话破坏了前面类比的严谨性。两次灭绝I含量并不一样啊，所以65是impact造成的，不见得250也是impact造成的啊，因为两次I含量还是差别很大的呀，250的I含量并不够高。
第五句：
This finding could imply a modest-size meteorite, not one big enough to cause a worldwide extinction.
这句话就是顺理成章的，那如果I含量不够高，那就意味着可能是一个小型impact，就不能造成250灭绝
第六句：
But some meteorites contain very little iridium, and comets, which are mostly ice, contain none.
但250灭绝是有可能仍然是impact造成的，因为不是每个impact都会产生那么多I。你必须意识到，刚才那句是为了说“250可能不是impact造成的”，而这句话是为了质疑刚才那种解读，表达“250还是可能是由impact造成的。
文章难点
这篇文章的表层困难就是，文章只有第一句和倒数第二句字面上提到了mass extinction，但其实所有句子都是要围绕mass extinction的解释的。
题目解析
第一题：
1. If the mass extinction 250 million years ago was caused by an impact, then, according to the passage, what must be true of the object that hit Earth?
A. It was a comet.
B. It was a modest-size meteorite.
C. It was significantly different in composition from the meteorite that hit Earth 65 million years ago.
D. Its impact was not associated with the iridium spike in the 250-million-year-old sediments.
E. It was bigger than the object that hit Earth 65 million years ago.
如果250灭绝是impact的结果，那根据最后一句话隐藏的逻辑，它并不会包含很多I，而65的impact产生了很多I，两者的I含量必须显著不同，所以是C。
很多人会选到B上，但这是完全的定位错误，题干的“如果250灭绝是impact的结果”只可能讨论最后一句话，而不可能是倒数第二句话，因为倒数第二句话其实是认为250灭绝不是impact的结果。
第二题：
2. The author of the passage mentions “European clay sediments” primarily in order to
A. explain how evidence of an impact 65 million years ago was initially discovered
B. make a distinction between different kinds of evidence scientists use to determine the cause of a mass extinction
C. suggest that evidence pointing to an impact 250 million years ago is as compelling as evidence pointing to an impact 65 million years ago
D. help to rule out explanations other than an impact for a mass extinction 65 million years ago
E. identify some of the grounds for concluding that a mass extinction 65 million years ago was caused by an impact
这是类比的部分，谈论的是65灭绝的部分，帮我们理解为什么我们会用I含量来判定impact，解释了为什么人们认为65灭绝是impact的结果，所以是E。
第三题：
3. Which of the following best describes the function of the last sentence of the passage?
A. It corrects a misinterpretation of Becker’s hypothesis
B. It suggest an alternative to Becker’s hypothesis
C. It provides information that could reconcile Becker’s hypothesis with certain evidence.
D. It clarifies a distinction central to Becker’s hypothesis.
E. It illustrates a paradox central to Becker’s hypothesis.
最后一句话的作用现在就很明了了，前面的信息指出，250的I含量很低，所以250不太应该是impact的结果。但这句话就表明，就算I含量低，但仍然有可能是impact的结果。于是，这句话reconcile（调和了）B的观点（250是impact的结果）与某些（不利）证据（I含量低）之间的潜在冲突，所以选C。