1、试题整体难度变化并没有确定的规律，比如去年(2017)5月亚洲的考试阅读部分很难并不意味着在亚洲进行的下一场考试的阅读难度(2017.10 Asia) 就会小于等于2017.5 亚洲考试的阅读难度(实际上，2017.10 Asia的阅读难度不低于甚至高于2017.05 Asia阅读难度)所以在考试次数减少的政策背景下，考生(特别是亚洲考生)报考考试的决策应该基本完全取决于现有水平、备考时间(备考期间时间的灵活性，比如学校功课，其他考试如AP/SAT Subject)与目标分数，而不是月份。
Section 5已成为常态： 本次考试根据学生反馈，CB已经大范围的在北美不考essay的考试中使用加试(出现在Section 5，答题时间为20分钟，可能是阅读/语法/数学的任一部分)，不能使用计算器的数学加试比较多，但难度明显低于算分section, 这点需要考生去注意。
而下面的内容是我们针对这次考试的各个方面进行了解读, 包括题型, 难度, 考点, 以及趋势判断等方面的信息, 来给各位家长与考生做出本次新SAT考试的深度考情点评。
本次北美SAT考试的阅读部分很有特点, 其难度分布与2017年5月亚洲真题很类似(小说和社会科学文难度较低，历史单篇与最后一篇科学难度较高，但注意双篇文章本次出现在第三篇自然科学)本次的历史类文章考到了Charles Dickens对于美国人民参与政治生活的评论，虽然结构和观点比较清晰，又是单篇，但是语言理解难度较高，考察的细节题对于生词与难句把握的精准度较高，可能会对于大家造成一定的影响。各大题型数量难易分布总体正常, 均在College Board官方公布的OG出题范围内, 建议大家要有针对性的特别对于循证题、修辞作用题和词汇题多做系统的总结与归纳。
词汇题有考察prompting, simple(2次) , character, regard, concluded, wrong(time)
The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears
故事的背景在narrator自己的store, 主要讲Naomi与narrator一起读书的故事，整体难度不高，场景与2017年1月北美的文学有异曲同工之处。Naomi对于读书非常的专注，并且非常善于观察，作者感到与Naomi这个孩子一起读书是很美好的场景;有时作者与Naomi一起读书甚至影响了自己的responsibility--接待店里的客人。文章后半部分讲述narrator 对于读书的热爱是来源于父亲潜移默化的影响(父亲把读书的习惯带到家庭生活的方方面面，视storytelling为一个essential event, as grand and real as life) 全文长度在75行左右。
Drunk Tank Pink: And Other Unexpected Forces that Shape How We Think, Feel, and Behave
By Adam Alter
研究人类到底在public面前完成任务是否会更好(social facilitation vs social inhibition theory)。研究者A通过两个实验得出结论是人需要旁观者才能enabled to liberate potential energy;但是另外两个研究者B and C得出相反的结果，认为对于复杂的任务如迷宫人需要独处才能更好的完成。最后研究者D通过从鸟身上做实验reconcile了这个矛盾的结论：人们在public面前的表现取决于nature of the task。简单的任务在旁人观察时表现更好;反之复杂的任务独处表现更好。
词汇题有考到simple(在两个不同的lines, line 27 & line 36?)。
P1：Why Do Zebras Have Stripes? New Study Offers Strong Evidence
By Christine Dell’Amore
P2：Why Do Zebras Have Stripes? It’s Not for Camouflage
By Laura Poppick
两篇文章都研究斑马有条纹(stripes)对于自己的生存有什么优势。第一篇开头列出一系列的假说(hypotheses) 然后Caro和她的同事用实验得出斑马条纹是为了ban biting flies，文章结尾让步提出实验结论的不确定性和需要more specific research。第二篇通过Larison的实验提出反驳意见，认为斑马条纹是为了regulate body temperature而不是avoid flies,注意第二篇文章结尾再次提到了Caro的实验结论，有考察观点求同题。
Gut Bugs May Boost Flu Shot’s Effects
By Kelly Servick
文章主要通过实验来研究影响vaccine effectiveness的因素(intestinal bacteria) 能够更好地让抗体发挥作用，加强免疫系统的反应，从而更好对抗流感病毒。最后2道题目为图表题。
主旨关键词：immune response to flu vaccine effectiveness
Gut bugs may boost flu shot's effects
By Kelly Servick
Every year, some unlucky people get the flu even though they’ve had their seasonal shot. One reason, according to a new study, might be their gut bacteria. Researchers have shown that, at least in mice, a strong immune response to the flu vaccine relies in part on signals from intestinal microbes. The findings could help explain variation in the response to the vaccine and suggest ways to maximize its effectiveness.
The microbes that inhabit our bodies—collectively known as the microbiome—may influence everything from obesity risk to food allergies. Recent studies have also shown that resident microbes affect how our immune system responds to infection. For example, mice with depleted microbiomes appear to be more susceptible to the flu. But it wasn’t clear what role the microbiome plays in the response to vaccines.
The new evidence came out of a curious observation that researchers revealed in a 2011 paper. Bali Pulendran, an immunologist at Emory University in Atlanta, and colleagues were looking for genetic signatures in the blood of people injected with the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine—a mixture of three flu strains. They wanted to know whether the expression of specific genes in the immune system’s white blood cells correlated with the amount of vaccine—specific antibodies in the blood—which indicates how strongly a person’s immune system responds to the shot, and how much protection that person will gain against future infections. In a long list of genes associated with strong vaccine response, the researchers found an unexpected one: the gene that codes for a protein called toll-like receptor 5 (TLR5).
“We thought this must just be a coincidence,” Pulendran says. TLR5 is a sensor of flagellin, a protein that makes up the appendages of bacteria. Why would a receptor that interacts with bacteria in the gut have anything to do with the body’s response to a virus injected into muscle? Maybe, the group thought, B cells—the white blood cells that produce antibodies—receive a signal from bacteria that boosts their activity.
To explore that possibility, the researchers designed a new study using mice. They gave the flu vaccine to three different groups: mice genetically engineered to lack the gene for TLR5, germ-free mice with no microorganisms in their bodies, and mice that had spent 4 weeks drinking water laced with antibiotics to obliterate most of their microbiome.
Seven days after vaccination, all three groups showed significantly reduced concentrations of vaccine-specific antibodies in their blood—up to an eightfold reduction compared with vaccinated control mice, the group reports online today in Immunity. The reduction was less marked by day 28, as blood antibody levels appeared to rebound. But when the researchers observed the mice lacking Tlr5 on the 85th day after vaccination, their antibodies seemed to have dipped again, suggesting that without this bacterial signaling, the effects of the flu vaccine wane more quickly.
The researchers saw similar results when they gave mice a polio vaccine, which, like the flu shot, uses an inactivated virus and doesn’t contain so-called adjuvants—additives that boost the body’s immune response. Pulendran and colleagues suggest that these weaker, adjuvant-lacking vaccines rely more heavily on bacterial signaling. (They didn’t see the same results with the live virus in the yellow fever vaccine, for example.)
No specific type of bacteria seemed more important than another in prompting the vaccine response. But further experiments showed a major role for macrophages—immune cells that display pieces of the virus to activate B cells and that can also recognize flagellin. Pulendran’s favored explanation is that flagellin manages to break through the lining of the intestines to circulate in the body and activate B cells and macrophages, amping up antibody production. But where and how the interaction happens “is a huge mystery,” he says. “We don’t have the full answer.”
本次考试文法部分可以说是非常容易，以往的难度较高/易错题型，如就近修饰--本次没有考察，句子删除保留，词汇题，introduction and conclusion, transition(previous/next sentence), Logical sequence等干扰选项设置迷惑性不强，但值得注意的是，关于同位语双逗号的考察本次试卷出现了2次，希望所有考生一定要在今后的备考中引起高度重视。
词汇题有考察advance和elaborate的区别，hazardous(修饰environment of outer space) , insights, reach conclusions的固定搭配等。
--- 标点符号题: 本次考试中逗号, 冒号, 分号的使用都有所涉及。 考察内容都是之前OG和真题中出现过的知识点, 没有特别大的难度。
--- 固定搭配与形近词辨析(maybe/may be; weary/wary)
--- 句子加减题/逻辑顺序题: 根据上下文内容进行句子增加, 删节, 以及排序
文章主题：1 Agriculture Grows Up
conventional agriculture versus vertical agriculture
2、A Singer Finds Her Voice
讲一个著名的歌手Nina Simone是如何通过她的音乐推广民权运动(Civil Right Movement)的。一开始Nina Simone对用音乐推动政治活动持怀疑态度，但她的朋友Hansberry鼓励她最终获得成功。
3、The Inner Working of Work
围绕一个核心概念(Industrial and organizational psychology)展开，提出公司的productivity取决于员工的满意程度，因此公司需要hire一些心理学专家去帮助提高employee job satisfaction从而促进workplace culture and organization。
4、The Road to Recovery
讲述濒临灭绝的物种没有很好地被保护，原因是对于endangered species的定义过于模糊，比较了两个法案ESA(对于endangered species分类更少更严格)和ICUN (有图表)得出对“endangered species”更清晰的定义有利于提高决策效率。难点在于43题的图表，比较了两个法案对于endangered species的分类。
As you read the passage below,consider how kathryn Miles uses
.evidence,such as facts or examples,to support claims.
.reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidence.
.stylistic or persuasive elements,such as word choice or appeals to emontion,to add power to the ideas expressed.
Our Failing Weather Infrastructure
----- by Kathryn Miles, Oct. 30, 2014 (The New York Times)
LAST week the National Weather Service’s satellite network crashed, leaving forecasters without crucial data as a large nor’easter swirled across the East Coast, dumping record levels of rain and leaving thousands of residents without power.
This network shutdown was the latest in a string of failures that has left the agency unable to meet the needs of the nation. Earlier this year, the service’s website collapsed under the weight of data requests from a single Android app. A month earlier, the service’s severe-weather alert system also crashed, creating a major disruption to communication that left residents from Colorado to the mid-Atlantic without key radar and warning information while a string of severe storms swept over their region. And in 2011, the National Weather Service website experienced what one official called a series of “catastrophic failures” just as a massive blizzard marched across the eastern half of the country.
Each of these instances revealed just how fragile our national weather program really is, and how desperately we need to invest significantly more in the weather infrastructure, technology and the kind of communication redundancies that will keep all of us safe.
This is not a new problem. For years, congressional allocations to the National Weather Service have all but flatlined. Meanwhile, the cost of storm recovery has skyrocketed. In the 20 years leading up to Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the United States suffered 133 weather disasters that exceeded $1 billion in damages, for a total of over $875 billion. Sandy, the second-costliest hurricane in the nation’s history, came with a price tag of an estimated $65 billion.
In the months after Sandy, the Department of Commerce issued a service assessment report, which evaluated the National Weather Service’s response to the storm. Its authors discovered understaffed forecasting offices, a shortage of products that convey storm threats to the general public and a real need for more staff training. These findings echoed a similar report issued after Tropical Storm Irene in 2011, which charged that gaps in technology, service and training had complicated forecasters’ ability to do their jobs.
But rather than address these shortages, in 2013 the National Weather Service was forced to put in place a hiring freeze and cut off funding for forecaster training and equipment maintenance, part of an 8.3 percent budget cut that came in the wake of the federal government’s budget sequestration. The National Weather Service now employs 288 fewer forecasters and technicians than it did when Sandy struck.
A report issued earlier this year by the union representing National Weather Service employees estimates that there are more than 500 job vacancies within the agency, 396 of which are considered “emergency essential” — forecasters and technicians who are on the front line of storm prediction and the issuance of watches, warnings and advisories.
For years, the National Hurricane Center has been stymied by what the Sandy assessment report called “a severe staffing shortage” in its technology and science branch, which is responsible for everything from software development to communicating watches and warnings. Thanks to budget constraints, the center employs just one full-time storm surge specialist, despite the fact that storm surge consistently kills more people than wind and is much harder to predict.
Meanwhile, existing forecasters are forced to cope with limitations that make their jobs difficult: radar that crashes, broken wind-detection devices, failing satellites and budget constraints that prevent them from utilizing tools like weather balloons.
Meteorologists at all levels of the National Weather Service are exceedingly talented, hardworking scientists. They can do far more than their jobs currently allow, including issuing seven-day storm forecasts and using global information systems to create surge maps that would assist emergency managers in evacuations. But, as one senior administrator at the National Hurricane Center told me, “we can barely keep the trains running.” And that’s a dangerous proposition for all of us.
This month is the second anniversary of Hurricane Sandy. And while the storm continues to hold the record as both the largest Atlantic hurricane ever and the second-most-expensive storm in our nation’s history, neither is the storm’s real legacy.
More than anything, Sandy revealed just how fragile our meteorological infrastructure has become — and just how vulnerable that makes us all. Currently, thousands of mid-Atlantic residents are still displaced from their homes. A class-action lawsuit against New York City revealed dangerous shortcomings in the city’s emergency management plan. And while meteorologists continue to debate the science behind the superstorm, they remain unified in their certainty that such a disaster will happen again.
An underfunded weather program will ensure that future disasters could be equally catastrophic. This is a matter of national security. If we don’t empower forecasters to do their work, our nation is at risk of losing billions in property and untold numbers of lives. What will make that eventuality all the more tragic is the fact that it will have been almost entirely preventable.