GMAT考试更多还是需要有真题实战，这样才能够有效的帮助我们来梳理GMAT考试的一系列问题，本文小编就GMAT实战的具体详情和大家做一个解读，大家可以根据自己的实际情况来了解学习，小编也祝愿大家都能够取得一个优异的GMAT考试成绩。
对于OG阅读部分的学习，大致可以分成两个侧重来展开，一方面是对文章的掌握，这一方面可以按小安阅读法，参照携隐课堂中“南丁格尔”的分析范例进行。另一方面是对ETS相关解释的把握，在这里我想多说一些。
首先，以OG-1为例，请大家看看我是怎么剖析的，不当之处请指正，当然如果认为不可救药，就扔臭鸡蛋吧。 。如果大家认真看完此篇解释，再大概统括一下，可以发现ETS在此主要给大家指出“定位”的作用。
在这篇开始之前，OG又特意罗嗦了三句重要的话：
1/The following discussion of reading comprehension is intended to familiarize you with the most efficient and effective approaches to the kinds of problems common to reading comprehension.
2/The particular questions in this chapter are generally representative of the kinds of reading comprehension questions you will encounter on the GMAT.
3/Remember that it is the problem-solving strategy that is important, not the specific details of a particular question.
第一句，ETS很自信地(the most efficient and effective approaches)提出让大家注意解决问题的最有效率、最有效果的阅读方法。而这些方法则在其解释的自里行间啊!大家真应该感谢ETS，在后面的285道题目中的解释中，他(我不再称呼他为它了)可谓呕心沥血地展示了这些方法，而这些方法往往是我们大部分XDJM们所忽略的，我们不仔细看就对不起人家啊!!!
第二句，说明这48篇范例，经过精心挑选，具有代表性，而不是简单拼凑的。可能每篇都有类型和问题的不同侧重点吧!?就象这第一篇是侧重定位的。
第三句，ETS又再次指出了解决问题的战略或曰策略或曰方法的重要性，而否定了各问题中具体内容的重要。其实，我还有疑问，ETS在此的前半句怎么看着别扭呢，it is…that…好像有点多余。但可能是强调句，强调problem-solving strategy吧。
第一题：解释部分只给出了正确选项的解释，其实ETS在后来的例子中连错误的选项也说明了是如何错的。我想他可能不想让我们一开始就太累了吧。由浅入深。我认为，此题指出“逐段总结”、“分清各段核心和层次”、“段落间关系”及“alternative意思”四个重点。
1/The best answer is D.
2/This question requires you to identify the primary concern of the passage as a whole.
3/The first paragraph presents a recent hypothesis about how caffeine affects behavior.
4/The second paragraph describes an (earlier) and (widely accepted) hypothesis about how caffeine affects behavior, and then presents evidence that is not consistent with that hypothesis.
5/The third and fourth paragraphs returns to the newer hypothesis introduced in the first paragraph and provide “evidence and arguments” that support this alternative hypothesis.
第一句，我发现ETS有时用best，有时用correct。我就考虑正确的选项可能有几个，但我们要选最好的。当然，ETS好像还没有在这两个词上做刻意区分。但是，在其他文章的题目中，确实出现一些情况：有的选项可能正确，但文中没有提到，因此模糊说来可以说这个选项correct，但绝不可以说它best。
第二句，他指出了此题目的。确实是“主题”题型。但我们应当注意，ETS指出，对此种题型，我们需要宏观把握主要内容。你也许会想，这简单，我早就知道，我不否认。但需要提醒的是，你有没有把解决主题题型的几个关键问题及几个步骤深入到脑海中呢。具体如何做，下面几句给出提示。
第三句，上来他说”第一段”如何如何，他是告诉我们要“逐段总结”。好吧，就让我们看看第一段：Caffeine, the stimulant in coffee, has been called “the most widely used psychoactive substance on Earth.” Snyder, Daly and Bruns have recently proposed that caffeine affect behavior by countering the activity in the human brain of a naturally occurring chemical called adenosine. #Adenosine normally depresses neuron firing in many areas of the brain. It apparently does this by inhibiting the release of neurotransmitters, chemicals that carry nerve impulses from one neuron to the next. Like many other agents that affect neuron firing, adenosine must first bind to specific receptors on neuronal membranes. There are at least two classes of these receptors, which have been designated A1 and A2. Snyder et al (et al: abbr. (Lat) 以及其他人，等人) propose that caffeine, which is structurally similar to adenosine, is able to bind to both types of receptors, which prevents adenosine from attaching there and allows the neurons to fire more readily than they otherwise would.读完后，你有没有像他那样总结出“a recent hypothesis about how caffeine affects behavior”这一段落核心呢。这样我们发现此段就分成两部分句群了，以#分开，第一层次就把此段概括了，第二层次是具体展开论述。我觉得，这是他表明我们要“分清各段的核心和层次”。
第四句，就让我们看看第二段：For many years, caffeine’s effects have been attributed to its inhibition of the production of phosphodiesterase, an enzyme that breaks down the chemical called cyclic AMP. #A number of neurotransmitters exert their effects by first increasing cyclic AMP concentrations in target neurons. Therefore, prolonged periods at the elevated concentrations, as might be brought about by a phosphodiesterase inhibitor, could lead to a greater amount of neuron firing and, consequently, to behavioral stimulation. #^But Snyder et al point out that the caffeine concentrations needed to inhibit the production of phosphodiesterase in the brain are much higher than those that produce stimulation. ^Moreover, other compounds that block phosphodiesterase’s activity are not stimulants. “分清各段的核心和层次”：本段核心为“an (earlier) and (widely accepted) hypothesis about how caffeine affects behavior”及“evidence that is not consistent with that hypothesis”。这样本段可分为三个句群，以#分开，第一层次总括，第二层次展开，第二层次指出2个证据evidence。同时，请注意他为什么说(earlier) and (widely accepted) 呢，可参照两点，一点是For many years, 另一点是have been attributed to，即通过时间和时态来表达的。(题外话：请注意，这里的第一个论据是存在诉诸权威的错误吗?因为逻辑题里常常会有引用某些人论述的选项。我认为不存在这种错误，诉诸权威是指权威的权威性确实被质疑，或引述内容来自权威但不是其真实意思，在此不存在这两方面问题。如果仔细研究一下逻辑部分的解释，就会发现ETS很少指出诉诸权威的错误，如果选项不对，往往也是因为其引述内容有缺陷。)
第五句，returns to揭示了文章的逻辑方向，强调我们要注意“段落间关系”。不是简单平叙，而是话题一转，又回到第一段的话题了。而且他没有再分述各段了，只是概括了一下后两段的内容，核心是“evidence and arguments” that support this alternative hypothesis。这提醒我们，这两段的“段落间关系”是紧密联系在一起，服务于同一内容的。我们可以把两段放在一起，分成六个层次：To buttress their case that caffeine acts instead by preventing adenosine binding, Snyder et al compared the stimulatory effects of a series of caffeine derivatives with their ability to dislodge adenosine from its receptors in the brains of mice. #“In general,” they reported, “the ability of the compounds to compete at the receptors correlates with their ability to stimulate locomotion in the mouse; i.e., the higher their capacity to bind at the receptors, the higher their ability to stimulate locomotion.” #Theophylline, a close structural relative of caffeine and the major stimulant in tea, was one of the most effective compounds in both regards.#There were some apparent exceptions to the general correlation observed between adenosine-receptor binding and stimulation. #One of these was a compound called 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine (IBMX), which bound very well but actually depressed mouse locomotion. #Snyder et al suggests that this is not a major stumbling block (stumbling block: n.障碍物, 绊脚石) to their hypothesis. The problem is that the compound has mixed effects in the brain, a not unusual occurrence with psychoactive drugs. Even caffeine, which is generally known only for its stimulatory effects, displays this property, depressing mouse locomotion at very low concentrations and stimulating it at higher ones.第一层次以实验evidence支持理论假设，第二层次对实验结果进行总结，第三层次例证实验结论。第四层次提出让步，第五层次例证这一让步，第六层次反驳这一让步。我们可以这样大致区分一下，即前三层次是evidence,后三层次是arguments.这就告诉了我们什么是evidence和arguments啊!同时，我注意到recent、newer、alternative是紧密联系在一起的。说明了什么是“alternative”。解释中的recent、newer、alternative被我连起来，同时我在alternative 旁打了星号，因为我觉得从全文中我们才能得到对这个词汇的直观解释。