嘉兴懦压旅行社

SAT，中文名稱“學(xué)術(shù)能力評(píng)估測(cè)試”，重要性相當(dāng)于中國(guó)的高考，也是世界各國(guó)高中生申請(qǐng)進(jìn)入美國(guó)高校學(xué)習(xí)，能否被錄取以及能否得到獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金的重要參考?？荚囋~匯量要求13000左右，難度系數(shù)：TOEFL＜SAT＜GRE。考試成績(jī)有效期為2年。

SAT閱讀 

從大趨勢(shì)上看，考試題越來(lái)越多，詞匯與內(nèi)容，層次和題目都有了重現(xiàn)性，建議想要沖刺高分的同學(xué)一定要重視以往的真題。

第一篇

文章講述小女孩Polly在遇到Abigail女士之后的故事。整體上看文字難度不小，方向性比較明顯，如果考生能夠靈活運(yùn)用閱讀規(guī)律，就可以減小難度。文中還設(shè)計(jì)一些細(xì)節(jié)題，不過(guò)普遍有答案可找。

第二篇

這篇說(shuō)明文講述了想要推行fair trade coffee可能導(dǎo)致的問(wèn)題。文章講解了fair trade coffee的動(dòng)機(jī)和產(chǎn)生的問(wèn)題，論點(diǎn)論據(jù)關(guān)系清楚，文中雖然有大量經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)概念和舉例，但總體難度較低。

第三篇

這是難度Z大的一篇，內(nèi)容是對(duì)于地質(zhì)考古的探討。文章針對(duì)一塊巖石中既有Permian又有Triassic的化石這個(gè)現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行了探討，先后給出了多個(gè)科學(xué)家的看法，探討了Permo-Triassic大滅絕和生物多樣性的種種關(guān)系。

第四篇

歷史題材屬于較為簡(jiǎn)單的女權(quán)題材，第一篇為爭(zhēng)取投票權(quán)而發(fā)聲，第二篇文章難度稍大，反對(duì)女權(quán)，點(diǎn)出了女性在道德、特質(zhì)等方面不適合參與政治的理由，題目的難點(diǎn)是在比較中的細(xì)節(jié)求同。

第五篇

生物學(xué)文章的難點(diǎn)在專業(yè)名詞和實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)置上，但這一篇在這兩個(gè)方面都比較友好，段落分的比較清楚。題目定位難度較小，圖表也沒有設(shè)置得較難。

SAT語(yǔ)法 

本次考試語(yǔ)法內(nèi)容比較簡(jiǎn)單，四篇文章話題都比較生活化，本身理解難度不大?？疾斓恼Z(yǔ)法大多是基礎(chǔ)語(yǔ)法，只要考生夯實(shí)基礎(chǔ)并且悉細(xì)心準(zhǔn)備，就能在考試中取得相當(dāng)?shù)某煽?jī)。

考察的內(nèi)容涉及句子結(jié)構(gòu)、時(shí)態(tài)、平行結(jié)構(gòu)、修飾錯(cuò)誤等等，各考點(diǎn)考查的思路中規(guī)中矩，沒有太多的陷阱題。句子結(jié)構(gòu)部分涉及到了冒號(hào)的用法，修飾限定非限定，插入語(yǔ)，祈使句，形式賓語(yǔ)，邏輯詞詞性判斷（but/however, and/then）等相關(guān)知識(shí)點(diǎn)，代詞涉及到了反身代詞和單復(fù)數(shù)。邏輯修辭題部分重復(fù)累贅題、合句題、細(xì)節(jié)題、引入題、過(guò)渡題的比重偏多，沒有涉及語(yǔ)氣態(tài)度題和插句題。各題型解題思路比較常規(guī)，比如三道合句題都存在明顯的重復(fù)和簡(jiǎn)單的邏輯關(guān)系（or/while）；第二篇文章連出兩道圖表題，對(duì)應(yīng)論點(diǎn)清晰，圖表數(shù)據(jù)也容易理解；詞匯題的考查也比較基礎(chǔ)（expansion/growth，invoke/evoke）。

SAT數(shù)學(xué) 

從內(nèi)容上來(lái)看以上大部分都是之前出現(xiàn)過(guò)的題型，這也就是文章開頭小編建議的，一定要把真題吃透，對(duì)考試成績(jī)非常有幫助。

Section3:

函數(shù)：一次函數(shù)的解析式，圖像，y-intercept的含義，二次函數(shù)的圖像，指數(shù)函數(shù)的解析式，定義，三角函數(shù)的定義方程&方程組：二元一次方程組，根式方程，一元二次方程求根Section4:統(tǒng)計(jì)：平均數(shù)中位數(shù)極差題目三道，常見的條件概率計(jì)算題一道函數(shù)：一次函數(shù)解析式，指數(shù)函數(shù)定義，以及圖像題多道，三角函數(shù)定義一題方程：無(wú)限解方程一題，方程組無(wú)解一題

SAT寫作 

本次寫作真題是一篇另辟蹊徑的女權(quán)類議論文，作者試圖論證當(dāng)今的“數(shù)據(jù)平等”并不真正符合女性的需要?？傮w來(lái)說(shuō)閱讀難度較低，但在選擇分析點(diǎn)上存在一定難度。寫作對(duì)我們的學(xué)員來(lái)說(shuō)本身就是一個(gè)難點(diǎn)，但細(xì)細(xì)推敲還是有規(guī)律可循的。

你看：文章開篇“權(quán)威”論據(jù)：從數(shù)據(jù)上看，女性在部分職位和收入上依然處于“明顯弱勢(shì)”。緊接著作者給出一個(gè)設(shè)問(wèn)和兩個(gè)反問(wèn)：女性希望得到平等嗎？當(dāng)然，正如她們不想被響尾蛇咬一樣答案明確。有趣的反問(wèn)似乎是作者對(duì)女性渴望平權(quán)的強(qiáng)調(diào)。到此為止是本文的鋪墊部分，乍一看大家可能以為又是老套的平權(quán)文章，實(shí)際上正符合作者的用意：給出一個(gè)多年女權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)之后的“常識(shí)”：女性從統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上看依然沒有得到平等的權(quán)利，她們需要更多的支持。第一個(gè)主體段，引出背景、誘導(dǎo)出讀者心中的女權(quán)“常識(shí)”，為在下文轉(zhuǎn)折時(shí)令讀者恍然大悟做好鋪墊。接著用對(duì)多個(gè)研究的反駁指出，實(shí)際上數(shù)據(jù)上的不平等是一個(gè)“mirage”，并不符合女性在職業(yè)上的真正選擇，她們?cè)谶x擇職業(yè)時(shí)是有偏向的，而這是有現(xiàn)實(shí)原因的，因此一概而論的大數(shù)據(jù)并不能正確反映女性是否遭遇了職場(chǎng)上的不平等對(duì)待。文章后半段，作者對(duì)認(rèn)為女性希望和男性一樣平分任何工作和生活場(chǎng)景的觀點(diǎn)，進(jìn)行了澄清。指出許多女性甚至只愿意做非全職工作。Z后作者指出，應(yīng)該去看女性有沒有得到她們想要的，而不是“電子表格”認(rèn)為她們想要的，向考生厘清了“大數(shù)據(jù)平權(quán)”的根本問(wèn)題，為女性虛構(gòu)了一個(gè)實(shí)現(xiàn)平等的條件。

正文

Do Women Really Want Equality?

1 .The fall season in gender-gap news has started early and with a bang. A study released yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that male doctors earn over 25% more than female doctors. Why am I not surprised? There is a constant stream of stories showing gender disparities like this: that Obama gave only 35% of Cabinet-level posts to women, that men still write 87% of Wikipedia entries, that they are approximately 80% of local news-television and radio managers, and over 75% of philosophers.

2 .After decades of antidiscrimination laws, diversity initiatives and feminist advocacy, such data leads to an uncomfortable question: Do women actually want equality? The answer seems transparently, blindingly, obvious. Do women want to breathe fresh air? Do they want to avoid rattlesnakes and fatal heart attacks?

3 .But from another perspective, the answer is anything but clear. In fact, there’s good reason to think that women don’t want the sort of equality envisioned by government bureaucrats, academics and many feminist advocates, one imagined strictly by the numbers with the goal of a 50-50 breakdown of men and women in C-suites, law-school dean offices, editorial boards and computer-science departments; equal earnings, equal work hours, equal assets, equal time changing diapers and doing the laundry. “A truly equal world,” Sheryl Sandberg wrote in Lean In, which is still on the best-seller lists months after its spring publication, “would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes.” It’s a vision of progress that can only be calculated through the spreadsheets of labor economists, demographers and activist groups.

4 .It would be silly to deny that equality-by-the-numbers researchers can deliver figures that could alarm even an Ann Romney. There’s the puny 4.2% of female Fortune 500 CEOs, the mere 23.7% of female state legislators, the paltry 19% of women in Congress. But while “numbers don’t lie,” they can create mirages that convince us we see something we don’t. Take, for example, the JAMA study about the pay gap between male and female doctors. The study seems to capture yet another example of discrimination against women. But because it fails to consider differences in medical specialty or type of workplace, that appearance may well be an illusion. Surgeons and cardiologists, who have long been in the ranks of the top-earning specialties, remain predominantly male. Meanwhile, as women flooded the profession, they disproportionately chose to become psychiatrists and pediatricians, specialties that have always been among the least lucrative.

5 .There are reasons for this particular wage gap that are gender-blind. Surgeons need more years of training, perform riskier work (at least that’s how malpractice insurers see it) and put in more unpredictable hours. Unsurprisingly, according to surveys, women who become doctors approach their work differently than men. They spend more time with each patient; when choosing jobs, they are far more likely to cite time for family and flexible hours as “very important” and to prefer limited management responsibilities. Male doctors, on the other hand, are more likely to think about career advancement and income potential.

6 .This hints at the problem with the equality-by-the-numbers approach: it presumes women want absolute parity in all things measurable, and that the average woman wants to work as many hours as the average man, that they want to be CEOs, heads of state, surgeons and Cabinet heads just as much as men do. But a consistent majority of women, including those working full time, say they would prefer to work part time or not at all; among men, the number is 19%. And they’re not just talking; in actual practice, 27% of working women are on the job only part time, compared with 11% of men.

7 .Now, a lot of people might say that American women are stymied from pursuing their ambitions because of our miserly maternity leave, day care and workplace-flexibility policies. But even women in the world’s most family-friendly countries show little interest in the equality-by-the-numbers ideal. In Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, according to the OECD, women still work fewer hours and earn less money than men; they also remain a rare sight in executive offices, computer-science classrooms and, though the OECD doesn’t say it I’m willing to bet, philosophy conferences. Sweden, the gold standard of gender equality in many minds, has one of the highest percentages of women working part time anywhere in the world. Equality-by-numbers advocates should be thinking about women’s progress in terms of what women show that they want, not what the spreadsheets say they should want.