3月11日北美sat寫作真題回憶.

　　別看北美3月11日的sat寫作考試已經(jīng)結(jié)束多時(shí)，但這次的真題，與國(guó)內(nèi)孩紙而言，還是很有價(jià)值的!出于此，今天的文章，澳際與童鞋們分享這一天的sat寫作真題，正在進(jìn)行sat寫作學(xué)習(xí)的孩紙，可以了解了解!

　　總體而言，本次sat寫作考試整體偏難。下面，澳際就將3月11日的sat寫作真題送上，sat寫作學(xué)習(xí)者們不妨感受下!

　　一、閱讀部分

　　本次閱讀難度適中稍難，出現(xiàn)了2篇Science文章(其中1篇還是paired passage)，1篇Social Science文章，1篇History文章，還有一篇文學(xué)類文章。

　　其中History的文章是Emerson之于政府和個(gè)人關(guān)系的論述，也可算作Social Science政治類文章。

　　由此可見，Science類型的文章占比進(jìn)一步加大!

　　第一篇: 文學(xué)類文章，小說(shuō)，難度稍易

　　文章大意：節(jié)選的是小說(shuō)中第一章剛開始的部分，描述了Briony這個(gè)孩子的一些性格特點(diǎn)和愛(ài)好。比如非常愛(ài)整潔，喜歡藏秘密，11歲開始寫自己第一個(gè)故事等。將這個(gè)女孩栩栩如生的刻畫出來(lái)。題目多為細(xì)節(jié)題。

　　第二篇: 社科類Social Science文章，難度適中

　　文章大意：本文講述了一個(gè)概念 - metaphor(隱喻手法)，以及它對(duì)人心理產(chǎn)生的印象和作用。文章開頭舉了一個(gè)metaphor的例子，說(shuō)如果沒(méi)有去過(guò)一個(gè)城市，而另一個(gè)人對(duì)這個(gè)城市的描述是臟亂差，這個(gè)隱喻手法就會(huì)在我們腦子中根深蒂固，即使發(fā)現(xiàn)是不準(zhǔn)確的，也很難被去除。文章隨后用科學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)的例子，繼續(xù)通過(guò)數(shù)據(jù)去說(shuō)明metaphor對(duì)人心理產(chǎn)生的影響。例子是描述一個(gè)城市的犯罪，用兩個(gè)不同的詞匯描述，一個(gè)描述犯罪是“像猛獸肆虐城市”，一個(gè)是像“病毒散播城市”，然后讓受訪者選擇解決方案，兇猛型的“增加警力和監(jiān)獄”和溫和型“教育并扶植經(jīng)濟(jì)”，結(jié)果完全不一樣。

　　第三篇: 科學(xué)Science類，難度稍高

　　本文講述的通過(guò)研究動(dòng)物骨頭標(biāo)本的一種實(shí)驗(yàn)方法，來(lái)推斷恐龍的年齡，以及它們體重和年齡的關(guān)系。文章給出了不同恐龍種族，如暴龍等，它們年齡和體重的關(guān)系圖。本篇涉及多道圖表題。

　　第四篇: 歷史政治History類，難度稍高

　　文章大意：文章闡述的是Emerson對(duì)政府和個(gè)人之見關(guān)系的見解，也就是民主主義和個(gè)人主義之見的矛盾。感興趣的同學(xué)可以閱讀一下原文。

　　第五篇: 科學(xué)Science類，難度適中

　　文章大意：第五篇文章是Paired Passage。兩篇文章，都是講火星的。第一篇講火星上在億萬(wàn)年前，科學(xué)研究表明發(fā)現(xiàn)有湖泊 (warm little pond) 的存在。文章介紹了這個(gè)湖的地點(diǎn)，大小，并且論述因?yàn)檫@個(gè)湖的存在，具備了生命的基本條件，提出了一個(gè)理論設(shè)想。 而第二篇?jiǎng)t提出，火星上有水源并且有較長(zhǎng)時(shí)間孵化出史前生命這個(gè)傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)，可能是錯(cuò)誤的。研究表明火星有可能是在極短的時(shí)間內(nèi)遭遇了地球從未經(jīng)歷的大變化，水源消失，沒(méi)有足夠的時(shí)間是的生命孵化。

　　題型總結(jié)：

　　A. 主旨題: 基本每篇均有涉及, 全文主旨和段落主旨。

　　B. 結(jié)構(gòu)題: 一段話問(wèn)你放在什么地方，要特別小心答案“After number XX”，不要誤以為是直接在“XX”處插入這段話。

　　C. 排除法+找對(duì)應(yīng): 考察細(xì)節(jié)的比較多, 同時(shí)伴隨循證題一起出現(xiàn)。

　　D. 循證題: 每篇2題左右, 難度中等。

　　E. 圖表題: 內(nèi)容較豐富, 但如果能夠正確提取關(guān)鍵信息, 拿下并不困難。

　　F. 詞匯題: 平均每篇1～2題, 正常。

　　二、語(yǔ)法部分

　　本次語(yǔ)法題較為簡(jiǎn)單。文章理解也不難。明顯對(duì)于閱讀題來(lái)說(shuō)要輕松些。很多題目不用通篇全部讀完整，這樣可以幫助我們節(jié)省時(shí)間。當(dāng)如遇到主旨題、結(jié)構(gòu)體，還是需要耐心的讀一下所提到的段落。

　　第一篇

　　本文講的是綠色能源的兩種介紹。其中主要介紹了biofuel，舉的例子是algae fuel，描述了建筑物如何使用綠色能源向建筑物提供energy，減少能源消耗。

　　第二篇

　　本文講的是Dudley Randall這位詩(shī)人，在60年代的Black Arts Movement中，如何創(chuàng)辦了Broadside Press，通過(guò)將詩(shī)歌印刷在傳統(tǒng)的宣傳頁(yè)上，傳播詩(shī)歌這個(gè)藝術(shù)內(nèi)容。文章主要講述的是傳統(tǒng)宣傳頁(yè)在這個(gè)運(yùn)動(dòng)中如何被重新使用，以及Broadside Press的成功。

　　第三篇

　　本文講的是2012到2024年期間，全美國(guó)的工作崗位會(huì)增加，而同期的基礎(chǔ)勞動(dòng)崗位(如基建，建設(shè)公人，暖通等)的需求量會(huì)增加的更多。所以文章從幾個(gè)方面去舉例闡述，希望現(xiàn)在更多的年輕人能加入并從事基礎(chǔ)勞動(dòng)崗位的技能學(xué)習(xí)。比如由于政府的規(guī)章制度更加嚴(yán)格，對(duì)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)更加苛刻，使得這些崗位的技能要求更加高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并且是“鐵飯碗”。

　　第四篇

　　本文講的Frank Lloyd Wright這位建筑師在30年代構(gòu)思的一個(gè)理想城市設(shè)計(jì)：Broadacre City。Wright這位建筑師覺(jué)得當(dāng)時(shí)的城市設(shè)計(jì)非常糟糕，所以他一生致力于設(shè)計(jì)一個(gè)理想城市。文章描繪了Broadacre City的一些設(shè)計(jì)理念，比如較少的高樓大廈，通過(guò)高速公路連接城市周邊的農(nóng)場(chǎng)等。

　　三、數(shù)學(xué)部分

　　本次考試數(shù)學(xué)部分并不是特別困難，一個(gè)明顯的趨勢(shì)是幾何題減少，代數(shù)題增加。應(yīng)用題不要掉以輕心，耐心讀完題，看清楚問(wèn)的是什么。

　　四、寫作部分

　　作者論述了為什么營(yíng)養(yǎng)品分析和減肥專家遭到瘋狂追捧?人人都可成為營(yíng)養(yǎng)達(dá)人?追捧是否合理?如何回歸理性，正確看待營(yíng)養(yǎng)品分析和減肥專家。

　　寫作原文回顧：

　　Everyone has opinions. You probably know what they say about that. But leaving aside the olfactory qualities of all the opinions to which we are entitled, we at least tend to know when our opinions are just opinions. But not with nutrition*, where not only does everyone have an opinion, but everyone seems to think theirs is an expert opinion. And our culture seems to be okay with that. I’m not.

　　By the same token, I’m not convinced that someone who happens to live through a bad car crash to drive again is automatically qualified to take over NHTSA, or set up shop as a motor vehicle safety expert, and dispense advice accordingly.

　　Call me crazy.

　　I am not at all sure that someone who inadvertently sets fire to his kitchen, and manages to put out the fire bore burning everything entirely down, is a shoe-in as fire commissioner, or qualifies as a fire safety expert. I am not sure that he should go on to establish a cottage industry in fire safety, selling expert advice in books, blogs, and programs.

　　I would have my doubts if someone who has driven for 10 years without ever having an airbag deploy writes a book, starts an organization and launches a social movement to oppose airbags as a government conspiracy. She might be convinced that airbags are a ploy by the “Big Auto” industry to dupe the public and drive up prices, but that wouldn’t make it so.

　　I’m not entirely persuaded that someone who happens to have gone hiking in Alaska once without being eaten by a bear is de facto a leading authority on bears, and qualified to dispense expert guidance on how to handle them.

　　I don’t think someone who has been a passenger on a plane is automatically a credible source about how to fly one. I don’t think anyone who has driven over a suspension bridge necessarily knows how best to build one. I don’t think someone treated once by a neurosurgeon gets to offer expert commentary on the nuances of brain surgery.

　　I trust these examples all seem pretty silly. We would never allow for claims of expertise, and cottage industries based on them, to be established on such flighty nonsense.

　　Unless, of course, the claims of expertise and cottage industries pertained to nutrition and weight loss — in which case, that’s exactly what we would do. It’s exactly what we are doing.

　　Everyone who has ever gotten fat and then lost weight is embraced as an expert, fully authorized by our culture to dispense advice and sell books advising others on how to succeed. For the most part, every one of these makes a case different from every other — and yet every one is convinced they have found the universal formula. And over and over again, the faithful, or hopul, line up and reach for their credit cards.

　　Don’t get me wrong — I am delighted for very individual who figures out how to lose weight, and more importantly, find health. I am delighted each time someone finds a path they can follow to lasting vitality. But the notion that this automatically registers as expertise is exactly analogous to the car crash and kitchen fire examples above. In any area other than nutrition and weight control, we would either laugh or roll our eyes.

　　Everyone who has ever eaten seems to be granted an equally authoritative opinion about nutrition.

　　This is not just nonsense. It’s dangerous nonsense.

　　I am not arguing that nutrition is special and should be treated differently simply because it is one of the most profound influences on human health (it is). I am not arguing that nutrition should be treated with particular respect because it makes the list of top three causes of premature death and chronic disease, and can exert a positive influence just as great (it does). I am not suggesting that nutrition should be shown unique derence because it represents the construction material for the growing bodies of children and grandchildren we love.

　　Quite the contrary; I am saying we need to stop treating nutrition differently. We simply need to treat it as we do any other subject that matters, and a whole lot of harm and confusion would go away. We need to stop treating nutrition with unique disdain.

　　What harm ensues from that disdain? Every silly diet to come down the pike gets the same treatment. I know this, because I do multiple media interviews every week about whatever the fad diet du jour happens to be (the latest theme is intermittent fasting, by the way). These diets are then featured on television and in print in a way that gives them all comparable credibility. And we are all kept in a state of perpetual confusion about what’s what.

　　The result? We already have far too many silly diets than any one of us could try in a lifetime, and we just keep getting fatter and sicker all the while. Competing versions of dogma are a catalyst for nothing but dissent and quagmire.

　　The recurrent promise of magic from sources given credibility they don’t deserve forestalls the unified, culture-wide commitment to eating well and being active that really could addyears to our lives, and life to our years. And yes — we really do know what eating well means. We are not by any means clueless about the basic care and feeding of Homo sapiens, and how bizarre it would be if we were! Our knowledge of optimal nutrition is by no means perfect, but it is genuine knowledge — and there is no need to make perfect the enemy of good.

　　Admittedly, there are differences of opinion among even legitimate experts in nutrition. To some extent, this is the inevitable parsing of details that occurs among experts in any field; it’s about the icing, not the cake. To some extent, this is a byproduct of our incomplete and evolving knowledge of nutrition and health.

　　But I do believe it is compounded by our tendency to treat any opinion on nutrition as an expert opinion. To get noticed at all in such context, some otherwise legitimate experts wind up exaggerating their perspectives to the point of disfigurement. I see this as the very unfortunate result of collusion among a culture that fails to require true expertise as a basis for expert opinion; a news media that profits from the perpetual uncertainty of their audience, and thus their receptivity to the next false promise; and experts willing to do whatever it takes to be heard above this din. Alas.

　　All it would take to fix this stultifying mess is to treat nutrition and weight management like every other legitimate field of inquiry. With no more respect than all the others, but no less either.

　　We don’t care what people not trained to do neurosurgery think about neurosurgical technique. They are not qualified to opine. When it comes to building airplanes or suspension bridges, we want to hear from the right kinds of highly-trained engineers, not some character who happened to ride in a plane once, or drive across a bridge. When it comes to flying those planes, we want things in the hands of trained pilots — not some guy with a lot of frequent-flyer miles and strong convictions. And I’m confident we want special military operations delegated to our elite troops, and not someone who saw Zero Dark Thirty and came out convinced he could have done a better job.

　　For now, anyone who shares opinions about nutrition or weight loudly and often enough — or cleverly enough — is embraced as an authority, with no one generally even asking what if any training they’ve had. This is compounded by the fact that, in the famous words of Bertrand Russell, “Fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” It is the least substantiated, most uninformed opinions about how to eat that will come at you with the greatest conviction. That’s your first clue that something is awry, because true expertise always allows for doubt.

　　We have created a seething stew of opinion about everything to do with nutrition, including, presumably, stew. That leaves us with far too many cooks, many lacking credentials to be in the kitchen in the first place. I trust everyone knows what that means.

　　-fin

　　*I am by no means suggesting readers buy this textbook! Rather, I cite it simply to show I’ve done my homework. The third edition of ‘Nutrition in Clinical Practice’ is currently in the works.

　　2017年3月11日的sat寫作真題，童鞋們感覺(jué)如何?為了更好地幫助大家進(jìn)行sat寫作學(xué)習(xí)，上述的文章，澳際還準(zhǔn)備了相應(yīng)的范文，各位可一定要認(rèn)真解讀呢!好啦，今天的內(nèi)容，到這里就全部結(jié)束了，想了解更多的話，還請(qǐng)繼續(xù)鎖定澳際教育sat寫作頻道!謝謝合作!

　　澳際留學(xué)深知每一個(gè)留學(xué)人都是獨(dú)一無(wú)二的，因此我們非常厭惡制作中文文書而后翻譯成英文的落后方式。令人遺憾的是，這正是很多DIY申請(qǐng)者和留學(xué)公司無(wú)法避免的行為。中西思維差異而導(dǎo)致的中式英語(yǔ)和詞不達(dá)意等弊病對(duì)申請(qǐng)結(jié)果影響惡劣，我們則會(huì)根據(jù)申請(qǐng)者個(gè)人特點(diǎn)和錄取委員會(huì)的思維邏輯進(jìn)行純英文創(chuàng)作。我們追求用地道的英語(yǔ)精彩展現(xiàn)申請(qǐng)人的特點(diǎn)，將Be Yourself 和Admission Officers' Thinking在每一份文書中完美結(jié)合。這不僅極大增加了成功機(jī)會(huì)，也讓文書的寫作變成了與我們的用戶進(jìn)行心靈交流的一種儀式。這個(gè)過(guò)程，不斷感動(dòng)著參與到其中的我們并為此驕傲。

　　澳際六步曲文書創(chuàng)作與學(xué)校申請(qǐng)服務(wù)項(xiàng)目根據(jù)各項(xiàng)考試成績(jī)和背景提升情況最終確定學(xué)校和專業(yè);根據(jù)所選學(xué)校的要求和特點(diǎn)制定有針對(duì)性的申請(qǐng)方案;根據(jù)所選學(xué)校的要求和特點(diǎn)創(chuàng)作有針對(duì)性的申請(qǐng)文書;指導(dǎo)申請(qǐng)人完成Writing Sample/Research Proposal 和Portfolio 的制作;指導(dǎo)申請(qǐng)人辦理成績(jī)單、在讀證明、畢業(yè)證明，存款證明等相關(guān)申請(qǐng)材料;指導(dǎo)申請(qǐng)人完成網(wǎng)上申請(qǐng)和郵寄申請(qǐng)材料。