2017.11.4北美地区SAT考情回顾,不要错过哦

发布时间:2017-11-16 16:03

11月份SAT考试在亚洲考区只有SAT2考试,但在北美地区是有SAT1考试的,为了给大家提供更多的备考素材,SAT君给大家分享下11月4号北美考场的SAT考情回顾。

总体来说,本次北美新SAT考试的难度印证了我们此前的预估:因为亚洲地区取消了6月、11月的SAT考试,此次考试参加人数相对较少,整体的题目难度不会很高:

A. 阅读部分的难度中等(相比5月、10月考试难度较低);

B. 文法部分的难度中等偏低;

C. 数学和写作部分中规中矩;

这是一次对于中低分考生比较友好的考试,下面我们针对这次考试的各个方面进行了详细的解读,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。

部分:阅读部分详细点评

A. 考试难度:

本次北美新SAT阅读部分整体难度中等,与2017年5月亚洲,2017年10月亚太相比,无论历史还是科学类的文章,话题都较好理解,观点也比较清晰,小说由于考察了相对多的细节,难度比5月和10月有所上升(打破了前几场考试文学简单的规律),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, 但是需要注意循证题的难度相比OG与2016年真题总体来说难度有所上升,建议大家要有针对性的多做系统的总结与归纳。

B. 篇章分析:

1、篇:小说

本篇关于一对夫妇去意大利罗马度蜜月,碰到他们艺术家侄子的事情。文章重点从对妻子的描写转向对侄子的描写,文风有趣。全程丈夫未直接出现在文章中,但从对话和对两个人物的内心描写中时常提到,文中出现了数次对比,如侄子见到精致打扮的妻子脸红 (his transparent face blushes),但侄子对丈夫表现却很严肃,略显无聊。由于文章是节选的,只能从上下文推测艺术家侄子受到丈夫的赏识,所以侄子对丈夫怀有义务感(indebted, of his duty),但实际上并不特别喜欢丈夫。这一点在侄子和妻子的对话中可以看出。倒数第二段描写妻子告诉侄子她丈夫和她在罗马度蜜月时仍然沉迷工作,侄子想大笑却努力憋着的情境,描写了他们三人之间微妙的关系以及复杂的内心活动。

2、第二篇:历史(双篇对比)

本次历史类话题仍然沿袭前几次真考, 以双篇对比文章的形式呈现,总体难度中等偏低。这次两篇文章的主题比较容易辨识,且观点直接明确,两篇文章是围绕女权(equal rights)所展开的。

篇文章开头先指出了虽然女性的数量以及超过了男性,但是女性在许多职业内占有比例远远低于男性(underrepresented),重点举了国会(congress)的例子,没有女性大法官(supreme court justice) 。然后作者重点指出目前女权运动两大问题,是说很多人认为现有的法律法规以及保护了女性权利,这点作者认为很明显有问题,用女性往往做职位低的工作女性在同职业内比男性收入低来反驳。第二是女性要平等就不能要求享有男性不具备的特权和照顾(privilege),比如女性不应该享受多的假期。

第二篇文章不同意篇的观点,他认为目前女权状况很让人满意。并且反驳说既然女性以及达到了更好的状况(指拥有特权和照顾),为什么我们还要让她们降低目前的地位呢?(指平权运动),最后一段说女性这种特权使男性要对他们的家庭和孩子付出更多的责任,如果真正平权之后男性不需要生孩子,女性的产假等福利就要被削减。

3、第三篇:社科

讲了絵文字/表情符号(Emoji)为何会导致语言的退化。作者首先进行背景介绍说语言是在不断进化的,话题一转说到如果我们必须脱离开物理世界(physical world)才能实现抽象化(abstraction),这种抽象,不具体的东西才能使语言进化。但是emoji只是简单的表情,是真实世界的写照,所以不能脱离物理世界。然后作者讨论了他反对者的观点:有时候人们觉得用文字描述既麻烦又不准确,不如emoji直观。作者没有直接反驳,而是以他自己为例子,说自己从来没有遇到这样的问题。然后他继续攻击了emoji两个弱点,个是添加新的emoji符号必须经由一个委员会的审核 (the Unicode consortium),导致添加新的东西很麻烦,与时俱进难。第二个是这种未经选举到的委员会(the unelected consortium)是对民主精神的违背,是一种精英主义(elitism)。

4、第四篇:科学

讲了鸟类认知系统。文章通过讨论有一只特别聪明的鸟能自行制造较复杂的工具引入对鸟类认知系统发展的探讨,作者说如果鸟能连续完成具有许多步骤,且步骤之间没有任何奖励的任务(without intermittent reinforce) 的序列,即说明它们可以认识到一个大目标,并能忍受之前小目标的无聊。如鸟类能打开研究者设计的五个连续锁住的小门,且门与门之间没有食物等奖励,就说明它们不是因为偶然才解决的问题。研究者用了10只鸟,其中只有1个能独立完成开5个锁的任务,但是其他9个通过研究者一定的训练,同样可以完成任务,且打开的是设计不同的门锁,说明鸟类可以灵活运用学过的知识来举一反三,同时也说明鸟类有独立解决问题的能力。

5、第五篇:科学

本篇科学类文章("为什么入侵物种能比本地物种适应的更好”)难度总体中等偏高, 讲入侵物种是如何适应新环境的。

两个研究者认为入侵物种到了新环境中一定会因为环境不同而内部产生新的变化(intrinsic change),于是他们做了一组实验,比较了来自Ontario, Canada(北方)和来自Virginia(南方)的不同植物,结论发现入侵物种不会倾向于自我繁殖,而是会和其他个体杂交,以得到更多的基因多样性(genetic diversity)来适应各种各样不同的环境,这种改变(mutation)只需短短几十年,文章最后出现了图表。

C. 考点分析:

本次的题目类型均在官方考点范围之内,最常规和具有代表性的题型均有所涉及,如主旨题(结构和意图)、细节推理题、修辞题、循证题、词汇题、图表题等,所有题型对应的题目难度总体处于正常水平。

本次词汇题的考查总体属正常水平, 未出现过难的词汇, 小说考查到的词汇如下:

“alive to” most nearly means :

A. reliant upon

B. eager for

C. caring about

D. suspicious of

第二部分: 文法部分详细点评

A. 考试难度:

本次文法部分的考试难度中等偏低, 我们非常熟悉的标点符号题, 主谓一致题, 比较结构题,逻辑衔接词,句子加减题,逻辑顺序题,图表题等考点都很常规。但值得注意的是,本次考试没有出现词汇题,几乎不涉及style and tone 这个考点,从总体考点分布的情况来看,又一次充分证明我们对于新SAT的教研与备考是科学与高效的。相信在过去一段备考时间中付出足够多时间练习的考生们一定可以在这场考试中发挥出理想的水平。 另外需要注意的是历次的语法考试部分因为没有容错率,考生在熟练掌握sat文法体系之外还需要提高细致程度才可在实战中取得高分段的分数(错4个以内)

B. 篇章分析:

1、篇:Robonaut 2: A Revolution in Robots

主要讲NASA宇航局和一些私人公司研究出了新型的机器人,这些机器人的mobility非常强,能够模仿人类一样运作。尽管当前这些机器人的工作还是局限于解决日常问题,但发展顺利的话未来将有非常广阔的应用性。文章探讨了它两种可能的运用,1)替代宇航员远程进行不同星球表面的探索,以减少宇航员发生意外的可能。2)医生远程操控,或机器人自己进行太空手术。

2、第二篇:Stitches for Health

主要讲研究表明一些无聊重复的兴趣爱好yarn arts, 比如织毛衣等对心理健康是有好处的。因为yarn arts 能够缓解职业压力(occupational stress),有助于认知能力的提升。有图表题

3、第三篇:How It Sounds to Be Free:The Voice of Nina Simone

主要讲一个很牛逼的歌手Nina Simone, 外号类似于灵魂歌者,歌声能够帮助听众舒缓身心,减缓痛苦。但是她并不是一开始就被大家所承认,因为她的音色被认为不适合古典音乐。但是她表达的情感很广阔,深深能感染到听众,所以最后她成功成为了能从隔声表达自由的歌手。

4、第四篇:Eventful Technology

讲专业会议因为需要特别细节化所以越来越难提前安排。为了解决这个问题,某公司开发了一个app来提升人们日常处理任务的效率。大家对这款app很满意,因此这表面技术是能够帮助event planners更好地协调会议工作的。最后有图表题。

C. 考察题型

1、固定知识点题型

--- 标点符号题:本次考试特别是第三篇文章中标点题的涉及较多,逗号,冒号,破折号,分号的使用都有所涉及。考试内容都是之前OG中出现过的知识点,没有特别大的难度。

--- 代词指代

--- 句子合并题

--- 比较结构题

--- 逻辑主语一致

--- 固定搭配(not only but also; inspiration+介词等)

2、与文章相关的题型:

--- 主旨题

--- 句子加减题: 根据上下文内容进行句子增加, 删节, 以及排序

--- 逻辑词题

--- 逻辑顺序题

--- 文章支持题: 需要根据文章内容找出支持文章的选项

3、图表题:

--- 此次考试中出现的图表题, 需要结合文章内容找出正确的选项。

第三部分: 写作部分阅读原文

Menaker: Why humans shouldn’t go to Mars

By Michael Menaker Jan 10, 2015

NASA's Mars Curiosity rover reached Mount Sharp in September. This image was taken by Curiosity's 100-millimeter Mast Camera on Aug. 23, 2012, as the rover made its long trek to the mountain across the red planet's barren landscape.

Mars has been in the news a lot lately.

Just recently, studies have shown that the red planet “belches” methane, harbors organic molecules and once was warmer and wetter than previously believed — all possible indicators of past, and maybe even present, simple life there.

And last month NASA launched its Orion spacecraft in a first step to eventually send humans on a journey to Mars.

The space agency calls a future human mission to Mars its “next giant leap.”

Actually, attempting to eventually send humans to Mars is a pricey, risky leap. And a poor use of a great deal of money.

There are, of course, good reasons for exploring Mars. The first is that Mars is the easiest place to reach to look for direct evidence of life beyond Earth. One of the biggest questions in science is whether or not life has originated more than once in the universe. Mars is the best place to look.

Another reason to explore is to study the geology of Mars, to answer a range of planetary questions that can improve our understanding of our solar system.

But there are many reasons not to send people to another planet.

Mars, as close as it is, is a planet too far. It would take well over a year to get there, work there and come back. It may prove impossible to get the astronauts back — a one-way trip is being considered, which raises troubling ethical questions. The astronauts would absorb dangerous doses of cosmic radiation. The mental anguish they are likely to suffer from living for so long in isolation, much of the time in zero to little gravity, is a recipe for profound psychological damage.

It’s also ridiculously expensive. Cost estimates are in the tens of billions of dollars. Based on previous experience with big government projects, we can expect the final cost to double or triple. By attempting to send humans to Mars we would divert a great deal of public money from potentially improving life on Earth for millions of people to just putting a few humans on another planet.

So why bother? The simple answer is people have a peculiar fascination with things that are hard to do. President John F. Kennedy famously stated in a 1962 speech, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

So we went to the moon between 1969 and 1972, a technical tour de force; a propaganda victory over the Soviet Union, our space-age rival. Inspirational at the time, but that was more than four decades ago and what, really, have we done with the moon? Planted a flag. Indeed we did gain advances in rocketry, computers, communications, avionics and robotics, but these were spinoffs from the difficult engineering task of finding a way to make “one small step for a man” on a close-by and barren sphere of rock and dust. We could have done just as well technologically by sending only robots.

Sending people to Mars will prove especially daunting. And I say this as a scientist who loves challenges. But the challenge ought to make good sense. Sending humans to Mars doesn’t.

The fact is, we already have been to Mars. We are there right now. We have been operating rovers on the surface of Mars since 1997, and landed another one, Curiosity, in 2012. The results have been spectacular. The robots have operated better than and for far longer than expected and are sending back excellent data and images that tell us more about that planet every day than any human on constant life support ever could.

Science is about discovery and we will continue to discover marvelous things by looking beyond our planet. It is the robots that are taking us there. At a fraction of the cost of human space travel.

And there’s a bigger reason for not wasting more money on human trips to nearby desert spheres. We currently are underfunding basic science right here on Earth. Our young scientists are poised and eager to make important discoveries on the planet where we need them most. They are destined to make amazing discoveries, if only we would adequately fund them.

Mars is undeniably interesting. It’s tantalizing and captures our imagination. But we’ve been there, we are there and we will continue to learn more from that marvelous red planet. If life exists there, or ever has, we will find evidence of it — with our robots.

In the meantime, there are urgent Earth-bound problems to solve. Let’s focus our resources on the basic sciences, which are beneficial for every person on this planet, and for the planet itself — the only one we don’t need a rocket to reach.

Michael Menaker is a professor of biology at the University of Virginia. He has conducted Mars-related basic research on circadian rhythms for NASA.

试听预约 模考预约
相关阅读
更多
SAT考试对申请美国大学影响大吗?
10-31
SAT考试科目大揭秘:你的备考指南
10-24
SAT培训班费用大揭秘:选对课程,省钱又高效!
10-21
SAT写作和托福写作区别:题目内容、评分、语言要求
10-18
SAT考试报名全指南!
10-17
SAT备考:专业培训助你圆梦名 校
10-15
相关课程
更多
雅思入门段(A段)6-10人班
雅思入门段(A段)6-10人班
雅思强化段(C段)6-10人班
雅思强化段(C段)6-10人班
雅思全程段(A+B+C段)6-10人班
雅思全程段(A+B+C段)6-10人班
雅思精讲段(B段)6-10人班
雅思精讲段(B段)6-10人班