10月1日新SAT考情回顾及真题解析

今天的SAT考试已经结束，从反馈来看，亚太区放出三套考题，并且10月份考题官方是会公开放出的，可见CB为了防止作弊也是蛮拼的，因为按官方的说法“出一套题成本很高”。

每年10月的考试最壮观，亚博馆万人坑果然名副其实，考生、家长、培训机构整个人山人海。尽管考前SAT君连推两篇文章《10月1日香港亚博馆SAT考场“万人坑生存指南”，妈妈再也不用担心你一个人去考试了》，《新SAT考场指令及考试流程解析》，但依然有考生反馈：难怪总是这里出问题！成千上万的孩子家长赶过来，都看不懂考场安排，乱成一锅粥！好吧，准备11月再战的同学，赶紧收藏了吧。

与往年不同，今年10月份的试题难度不大，不知道接下来几次考试是否难度会有调整，建议考生一定要把可汗的几套试题都练一遍，多做模考。至于本次考试会不会延迟出分，SAT君大胆推测不会影响大家的EA/ED申请，考生不要过于担忧。

此次阅读部分的5篇文章出题顺序为：小说，历史，科学，社会科学，科学。这次阅读有一个图表题，出在双篇阅读中，是科学类文章，略有难度，需要结合文章，考的是细节理解。词汇题没有生僻词，可以说是很简单的词。小说不好做，和上半年真考有差距，考了经典文学名著《简爱》，这往往是OG和可汗的小说风格。虽然文章层次比较清楚，可是GERNERAL TONE模糊，主旨重心不好把握。人文部分比较简单，题材熟悉，论点明确。

第一篇文学，难度中等，讲一个女的在别人家当governess，孩子叫Adele，孩子很乖，家长也挺好。但是narrator就是对现状不满，想要探索更多外面的世界。文字难度一般，比OG1的Akira难，和OG2的the professor难度差不多。但是小说一般都单词难，这次也不例外，像原文的prattle，选项的surreal相信很多学生都不清楚意思。

10月1日的SAT亚太考试中，阅读部分的第一篇小说，考到了夏洛蒂·勃朗特的《简爱》，节选自第十二章中，Jane Eyre对Adele这个小姑娘的学习情况及性格评价。这部作品，是我们推荐学生的必读书目，原因如下：

1、研读新SAT官方指南，我们不难发现，4套题目中，阅读部分的小说，多为19世纪作品，包括其它更多选篇中，女性主义题材也是一个备受青睐的话题。

2、说到19世纪，谈到女性主义，不得不提的就是夏洛蒂·勃朗特，她的2部作品节选，分别在新SAT官方指南OG和可汗中出现，一篇是《教师》，另一篇是《维莱特》。而《简爱》更是夏洛蒂·勃朗特的著名代表作品。

3、新SAT阅读中，部分考生到后期的易错题，多集中在词汇题，因为多考熟词僻义，而这种考法所要求的能力，不容易通常背单词书习得，更建议通过读英文书获取。比如，《简爱》中，就经常出现这样的熟词僻义，intimate，v.暗示；entertain an idea 抱有一种想法，等等。

第二篇历史，难度中等，主要呼吁美国不应受到英国政府的统治。难度一般，新SAT真题历史首次出现单篇。不是双篇再加上相对比较直白的语言，此篇历史很有可能是新SAT到目前为止难度相对最低的历史。

阅读部分的建国纲要，考到了潘恩的《常识》，而这部作品，也是我们推荐学生的必读书目。推荐原因如下：

1、新SAT每次考试的阅读篇章中，必考一篇美国建国纲要和著名演讲，有时单篇出现，有时双篇对比。这类题材也是学生们在备考SAT时，觉得难度较大的题材。

2、新SAT官方指南中考到潘恩的《人的权利》，以双篇形式出现，对比伯克的《论法国大革命》。另外，可汗阅读中，又一次考到潘恩的《人的权利》的节选，此次为单篇。

3、在推荐阅读书单时，我们多会参考《美国核心课程标准大纲》，简称CCSS。在这份书单中，潘恩的《常识》为推荐书目。《常识》写于1776年1月，美国独立之前，对于美国的独立有重要意义，其思想甚至可以认为是《独立宣言》等作品的鼻祖。读《常识》，便可事半功倍的理解到美国建国纲要的核心要义。

基于以上几点，我们在新SAT的课程中，都推荐学生必读潘恩的《常识》，扎实分析官方指南和可汗中该作者的文章和配套题目。相信认真按要求完成的同学，在10月的SAT考场上，一定收获满满，信心十足。

第三篇自然科学，难度中等，讲一个实验怎么证明是地球的气候影响导致岩石减少。题目相对OG很多弱鸡的自然科学有一定难度，估计有一组询证题同学们可能会比较难选出来，但是有简单到哭的图表题。

第四篇社会科学，难度简单，文章大意讲urban innovation，研究人员做实验研究了在urban和nonurban地区两种不同类型的创新，innovation of ideas和innovation of process。个人感觉社会科学是这次考试当中题目难度相对最低的。这也和OG1，2，3一致，貌似有趋势总是将社会科学设置成最简单的文章。

第五篇自然科学，难度中等，文章大意关于carnivore explosion。第一篇讲为什么carnivore的大量出现会和之前某个时期有gap，S科学家做实验并得出结论，是因为oxygen的存在让carnivore出现。但是最后一段B提出异议，他认为两者的因果关系S搞反了，而lack of oxygen并不会很影响当时的物种。第二篇和第一篇对立，第二篇认为carnivore之所以被认为晚出现是因为那个时期的fossil不能很好保存，和oxygen无关。作为双篇，而且在最后一篇，题目难度即使再简单对大家都可能不会简单到哪去。同学们不仅要对文章的大致意思有所把握，而且要对细节观点有印象，否则后面的双篇题难以下手。

今天的语法考试相较于五月份亚太和北美的考试，难度系数要提升一些，主要在于文本的复杂度有了提升，尤其是第三篇讲述一个photographer的文章，更是让很多学生读不太懂，琢磨不透。

回顾本次语法考试，能明显感觉到对于基本语法考点的弱化，除了时态，平行结构，比较结构等考点的考察较难外，没有其他的较难的的考点。而篇章的题目难度加大，主要体现在文本难度高，学生经常看不懂细节处的内容，就更别提对于插入删除等信息的处理了。

今天的四篇文章主题是：太阳黑子现象对于磁场的影响、体育特长大学生的境况、一个照相师的作品的发布、人工机器人设计的越来越像人类的原因和担忧。

语法考点包括：标点考查（尤其是逗号）、主谓一致、时态、平行、代词，句子结构。大家的困扰点仍是与语篇有关的题目，如句子删除、句子添加、插入句子的位置，举例题。希望同学们在平时学习中严格控制语法题目的错题量即确保上面提到的与动词、代词、平行、句子完整性这些比较容易得分的语法点。

考点概述：

1.一次方程的解方程，应用题

2.二次方程的解方程，应用题

3.数形结合（一次和二次图像的分析），分析图像走势，斜率，截距，顶点之类。

4.图表问题，分析数据（主要是用数字加减乘除），包括求平均数，中位数，众数。

5.实验样本选取，推理题

6.几何（平面、立体）特别是圆，三角形。

7.三角函数和虚数

8.代数计算题，单位换算之类。

此次数学难度还是一般，值得注意的是最后两题，题目要求答案给出千分位thousands，所以小数点前的0是不要写的，否则答案就给不到千分位了。

本次写作难度较低！整篇文章要读懂非常轻松，而且话题和OG里的例子“Why literature matters”很像，开头模板段应该很好写。

这次亚太试卷SAT写作阅读原文出自纽约时报：http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/opinion/bruni-read-kids-read.html

Frank Bruni

As an uncle I’m inconsistent about too many things.

Birthdays, for example. My nephew Mark had one on Sunday, and I didn’t remember — and send a text — until 10 p.m., by which point he was asleep.

School productions, too. I saw my niece Bella in “Seussical: The Musical” but missed “The Wiz.” She played Toto, a feat of trans-species transmogrification that not even Meryl, with all of her accents, has pulled off.

But about books, I’m steady. Relentless. I’m incessantly asking my nephews and nieces what they’re reading and why they’re not reading more. I’m reliably hurling novels at them, and also at friends’ kids. I may well be responsible for 10 percent of all sales of “The Fault in Our Stars,” a teenage love story to be released as a movie next month. Never have I spent money with fewer regrets, because I believe in reading — not just in its power to transport but in its power to transform.

So I was crestfallen on Monday, when a new report by Common Sense Media came out. It showed that 30 years ago, only 8 percent of 13-year-olds and 9 percent of 17-year-olds said that they “hardly ever” or never read for pleasure. Today, 22 percent of 13-year-olds and 27 percent of 17-year-olds say that. Fewer than 20 percent of 17-year-olds now read for pleasure “almost every day.” Back in 1984, 31 percent did. What a marked and depressing change.

I know, I know: This sounds like a fogy’s crotchety lament. Or, worse, like self-interest. Professional writers arguing for vigorous reading are dinosaurs begging for a last breath. We’re panhandlers with a better vocabulary.

But I’m coming at this differently, as someone persuaded that reading does things — to the brain, heart and spirit — that movies, television, video games and the rest of it cannot.

There’s research on this, and it’s cited in a recent article in The Guardian by Dan Hurley, who wrote that after “three years interviewing psychologists and neuroscientists around the world,” he’d concluded that “reading and intelligence have a relationship so close as to be symbiotic.”

In terms of smarts and success, is reading causative or merely correlated? Which comes first, “The Hardy Boys” or the hardy mind? That’s difficult to unravel, but several studies have suggested that people who read fiction, reveling in its analysis of character and motivation, are more adept at reading people, too: at sizing up the social whirl around them. They’re more empathetic. God knows we need that.

Late last year, neuroscientists at Emory University reported enhanced neural activity in people who’d been given a regular course of daily reading, which seemed to jog the brain: to raise its game, if you will.

Some experts have doubts about that experiment’s methodology, but I’m struck by how its findings track something that my friends and I often discuss. If we spend our last hours or minutes of the night reading rather than watching television, we wake the next morning with thoughts less jumbled, moods less jangled. Reading has bequeathed what meditation promises. It has smoothed and focused us.

Maybe that’s about the quiet of reading, the pace of it. At Success Academy Charter Schools in New York City, whose students significantly outperform most peers statewide, the youngest kids all learn and play chess, in part because it hones “the ability to focus and concentrate,” said Sean O’Hanlon, who supervises the program. Doesn’t reading do the same?

Daniel Willingham, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, framed it as a potentially crucial corrective to the rapid metabolism and sensory overload of digital technology. He told me that it can demonstrate to kids that there’s payoff in “doing something taxing, in delayed gratification.” A new book of his, “Raising Kids Who Read,” will be published later this year.

Before talking with him, I arranged a conference call with David Levithan and Amanda Maciel. Both have written fiction in the young adult genre, whose current robustness is cause to rejoice, and they rightly noted that the intensity of the connection that a person feels to a favorite novel, with which he or she spends eight or 10 or 20 hours, is unlike any response to a movie.

That observation brought to mind a moment in “The Fault in Our Stars” when one of the protagonists says that sometimes, “You read a book and it fills you with this weird evangelical zeal, and you become convinced that the shattered world will never be put back together unless and until all living humans read the book.”

Books are personal, passionate. They stir emotions and spark thoughts in a manner all their own, and I’m convinced that the shattered world has less hope for repair if reading becomes an ever smaller part of it.

2016年10月亚洲新SAT考试的写作范文: 

Words, the reflection of the real world, should be a kind of enjoyment. However, the “plague” of spiritual emptiness has led to people’s ignorance of reading. Today, when appreciating a piece of work, people prefer an excerpts to the whole work. In the author’s “Read, Kids, Read”, he argues that reading should remain a valued activity. By the end of this piece,  the reader will likely find themselves nodding in agreement with what the author has to say. The author employs contrast, research results, statistics and appeal to emotion to plead with the audience to take his side.

Sharing his personal experience, the author starts his article off by employing a sharp contrast. The author first notices that he is “not inconsistent about too many things”. To illustrate this point, he recalls two pieces of experience with his nephew and niece. He can neither remember the date of his nephew’s birthday nor her niece’s school productions. Later, the author claims the opposite phenomenon: “But about books , I’m steady”. As a fan of books, the author is always “hurling” novels at young people around him. Characterizing the behavior with  the precisely chosen word “hurling”, the author dramatizes his desperate commendation of books. By juxtaposing to his amnesia to his “propaganda” for reading, the author unfolds his exceptional fever for reading. The contrast highlights the disparity, drawing the audience into the issue addressed by the writing.

To further his concern of diminishing reading among teenagers, the author then enhances his argument by citing a series of research results and statistics.  In the fifth paragraph, the author manifests a report commissioned by Common Sense Media. The detailed statistics reveals that few people found themselves boring in reading thirty years ago, while today “22 percent of 13-year-olds and 27 percent of 17-year-olds say [they never read for pleasure]”. By demonstrating these statistics, the author forms another sharp contrast. Affording readers the opportunity to examine the proofs objectively and independently, the author, with the utilization of statistics, increases reader’s readiness to take the author’s side. Noticing that young people turn more to diverse forms of mass media, such as movies, television, video games, the author points out that reading, compared to the other forms of mass media, is the only path to the enhancement of brain, heart and spirit. As research results are are credible and authentic, the author does so with trends. The author then presents the findings from a recent article, “The Guardian by Dan Hurley”, claiming reading and intelligence have a relationship so close as to be symbiotic. With the help of statistics and research results, the author successfully enhances the credibility and legitimacy of his claim, creating a compelling appeal to ethos.

Additionally, appeal to emotion lends more credibility to the author’s claim. To stir people’s attention upon the significance of reading, the author enumerates the advantages of reading with even more research results. The author synthesizes multiple sources of evidence as part of reasoning to testify the point that “Reading stirs emotions and spark thoughts in a manner all their own. ” In the tenth paragraph, the author cites findings from several studies, suggesting that “people who read fiction, reveling in its analysis of character and motivation, are more adept at reading people”. In the twelfth paragraph, the study conducted by Success Academy Charter Schools in New York City manifests that reading will create an inner-peace for readers. In a world with hustle and bustle, the author activates people’s longing for peace. This strategy is definitively an appeal to pathos, forcing the audience to directly face an emotionally-charged inquiry that will surely spur some kind of response.

It is through many rhetorical devices that the author sells his argument. Contrast, statistics, research results, appeal to emotion- all contribute to an exceptionally well-written argument. It is his utilization of these practices and more that make this article worthy of recognition.

有其他问题欢迎大家进SAT备考QQ群（二）讨论：459549689。