(some gems. paraphrased, of course...):
Reviewer 1: Paper was specific and narrowly focused. This worked well.
Reviewer 2: Well-written, easy to follow, not a single error of syntax detectable.
Reviewer 3: Very clearly organized. Objectives and findings well-stated.
Reviewer 4: Paper is unfocused and leaves the reader confused.
Srsly?! In my response can I just cite Reviewers 1-3 to counteract Reviewer 4?