Reading a Passage That Argues Against Itself
A reading-comprehension passage in a practice set contains these sentences: "Remote work reduced commuting costs for employees. Firms reported lower facilities spending. Nevertheless, many organizations reinstated attendance requirements in 2023. Surveys of managers cite collaboration concerns, though the same surveys show no measurable change in team output. Critics argue the policies reflect sunk lease obligations rather than productivity data." A student answers the question "What is the author's main point?" with "Remote work saves money." The answer key marks it wrong.
1. Explain why "Remote work saves money" misreads the passage, identifying the structural signal the student overlooked.
Read the worked answer
The student has read the first two sentences and stopped. Those sentences are conceded premises, not the thesis.
The pivot is "Nevertheless." In passage structure, a concession followed by a contrast marker signals that the author is granting a point in order to set it aside. The passage's actual movement is: costs fell, yet firms reversed course anyway, and the stated reason (collaboration) is undercut by the author's own evidence (no measurable output change). The final sentence offers the author's implied explanation: lease obligations, not productivity.
So the main point is something like "The 2023 return-to-office policies are not supported by the productivity evidence their advocates cite." "Remote work saves money" is a true statement about the passage but it is a premise the author uses, not the claim the author is making. On main-point questions, a true-but-subordinate statement is the most common trap.
2. The passage says managers cite collaboration concerns "though the same surveys show no measurable change in team output." What does the word "though" accomplish here, and how would removing it change the passage's stance?
Read the worked answer
"Though" marks a contrast between the managers' stated rationale and the survey evidence, and it positions the author as skeptical of that rationale. By placing the two facts in one sentence with a concessive connector, the author invites the reader to see the collaboration concern as asserted but unsupported.
Remove it and write "Surveys of managers cite collaboration concerns; the same surveys show no measurable change in team output," and the sentence becomes a neutral pairing of two findings. The reader must supply the inference. The author's skepticism, which was explicit, becomes merely available.
This matters for tone questions and inference questions alike: the connective is doing argumentative work, not decoration. A reader who treats "though," "although," and "yet" as filler will systematically miss authorial stance.