北美地區(qū)2018年3月SAT考情回顧

2018年3月份，首場(chǎng)SAT考試結(jié)束了，近日石家莊新航道小編跟大家一起回顧一下這次北美地區(qū)SAT考試情況!

1、試題整體難度變化并沒(méi)有確定的規(guī)律，比如去年(2017)5月亞洲的考試閱讀部分很難并不意味著在亞洲進(jìn)行的下一場(chǎng)考試的閱讀難度(2017.10 Asia) 就會(huì)小于等于2017.5 亞洲考試的閱讀難度(實(shí)際上，2017.10 Asia的閱讀難度不低于甚至高于2017.05 Asia閱讀難度)所以在考試次數(shù)減少的政策背景下，考生(特別是亞洲考生)報(bào)考考試的決策應(yīng)該基本完全取決于現(xiàn)有水平、備考時(shí)間(備考期間時(shí)間的靈活性，比如學(xué)校功課，其他考試如AP/SAT Subject)與目標(biāo)分?jǐn)?shù)，而不是月份。

2、難度的變化在改革后的新SAT考試中一定會(huì)體現(xiàn)在出分的Curve上，意味著考生普遍認(rèn)為難度較高的考試容錯(cuò)率會(huì)比普通考試有所增加，Curve會(huì)相對(duì)寬松，這點(diǎn)不僅體現(xiàn)在閱讀部分，語(yǔ)法和數(shù)學(xué)部分也會(huì)體現(xiàn)。

3、CB以后應(yīng)該不會(huì)在亞洲地區(qū)部分/全盤重復(fù)使用北美使用過(guò)的老題，考生參加考試的安全性和公平公正性可以得到保障。

4、SAT閱讀部分考察的歷史文章獨(dú)立于美國(guó)歷史的學(xué)科考試，不會(huì)考察美國(guó)歷史的背景知識(shí)，正如本次亞洲考試歷史雙篇對(duì)比考察到了英國(guó)殖民統(tǒng)治下的印度政府話題，歷史類文章完全有可能考察美國(guó)歷史經(jīng)典話題以外的話題。同樣，話題的考察也沒(méi)有確定的規(guī)律(如去年11月和12月在北美地區(qū)連續(xù)考察女權(quán)問(wèn)題，12月和3月亞洲都沒(méi)有考察美國(guó)歷史經(jīng)典話題)

5、SAT閱讀對(duì)于細(xì)節(jié)的要求越來(lái)越高幾乎已成定局，無(wú)行號(hào)細(xì)節(jié)題增多，按順序解題不再完全適用，提高了考生對(duì)于宏觀的文章邏輯框架、微觀的段落核心意思快速分析、以及詞匯與句子結(jié)構(gòu)基本功的要求，另外考生需要多加強(qiáng)對(duì)于70-90行的文章進(jìn)行summary的能力訓(xùn)練。

6、SAT語(yǔ)法部分整體難度和考點(diǎn)維持在一個(gè)相對(duì)友好的動(dòng)態(tài)平衡，強(qiáng)化考點(diǎn)意識(shí)與審題訓(xùn)練，通過(guò)刷題和錯(cuò)題總結(jié)獲得高分段的成績(jī)(350以上)并不困難。

總體來(lái)說(shuō), 本次北美新SAT考試的難度不高，其實(shí)這次不管是北美還是亞洲地區(qū)，3月的SAT考試對(duì)于中低分考生非常友好(相對(duì)而言，北美卷難度稍大一點(diǎn))，閱讀和語(yǔ)法難度都明顯低于10月和12月的考試):

A、閱讀部分的難度中等(歷史和結(jié)尾一篇科學(xué)難度較高)

B、文法部分的難度低(預(yù)計(jì)容錯(cuò)率很低，大致錯(cuò)3道360分左右)

C、數(shù)學(xué)部分的難度中等偏低

Section 5已成為常態(tài)： 本次考試根據(jù)學(xué)生反饋，CB已經(jīng)大范圍的在北美不考essay的考試中使用加試(出現(xiàn)在Section 5，答題時(shí)間為20分鐘，可能是閱讀/語(yǔ)法/數(shù)學(xué)的任一部分)，不能使用計(jì)算器的數(shù)學(xué)加試比較多，但難度明顯低于算分section, 這點(diǎn)需要考生去注意。

而下面的內(nèi)容是我們針對(duì)這次考試的各個(gè)方面進(jìn)行了解讀, 包括題型, 難度, 考點(diǎn), 以及趨勢(shì)判斷等方面的信息, 來(lái)給各位家長(zhǎng)與考生做出本次新SAT考試的深度考情點(diǎn)評(píng)。

 

 

一、閱讀部分

A、考試難度

本次北美SAT考試的閱讀部分很有特點(diǎn), 其難度分布與2017年5月亞洲真題很類似(小說(shuō)和社會(huì)科學(xué)文難度較低，歷史單篇與結(jié)尾一篇科學(xué)難度較高，但注意雙篇文章本次出現(xiàn)在第三篇自然科學(xué))本次的歷史類文章考到了Charles Dickens對(duì)于美國(guó)人民參與政治生活的評(píng)論，雖然結(jié)構(gòu)和觀點(diǎn)比較清晰，又是單篇，但是語(yǔ)言理解難度較高，考察的細(xì)節(jié)題對(duì)于生詞與難句把握的度較高，可能會(huì)對(duì)于大家造成一定的影響。各大題型數(shù)量難易分布總體正常, 均在College Board官方公布的OG出題范圍內(nèi), 建議大家要有針對(duì)性的特別對(duì)于循證題、修辭作用題和詞匯題多做系統(tǒng)的總結(jié)與歸納。

詞匯題有考察prompting, simple(2次) , character, regard, concluded, wrong(time)

B、篇章分析

靠前篇：文學(xué)

The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears

故事的背景在narrator自己的store, 主要講Naomi與narrator一起讀書的故事，整體難度不高，場(chǎng)景與2017年1月北美的文學(xué)有異曲同工之處。Naomi對(duì)于讀書非常的專注，并且非常善于觀察，作者感到與Naomi這個(gè)孩子一起讀書是很美好的場(chǎng)景;有時(shí)作者與Naomi一起讀書甚至影響了自己的responsibility--接待店里的客人。文章后半部分講述narrator 對(duì)于讀書的熱愛(ài)是來(lái)源于父親潛移默化的影響(父親把讀書的習(xí)慣帶到家庭生活的方方面面，視storytelling為一個(gè)essential event, as grand and real as life) 全文長(zhǎng)度在75行左右。

第二篇：社會(huì)科學(xué)

Drunk Tank Pink: And Other Unexpected Forces that Shape How We Think, Feel, and Behave

By Adam Alter

研究人類到底在public面前完成任務(wù)是否會(huì)更好(social facilitation vs social inhibition theory)。研究者A通過(guò)兩個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)得出結(jié)論是人需要旁觀者才能enabled to liberate potential energy;但是另外兩個(gè)研究者B and C得出相反的結(jié)果，認(rèn)為對(duì)于復(fù)雜的任務(wù)如迷宮人需要獨(dú)處才能更好的完成。結(jié)尾研究者D通過(guò)從鳥身上做實(shí)驗(yàn)reconcile了這個(gè)矛盾的結(jié)論：人們?cè)趐ublic面前的表現(xiàn)取決于nature of the task。簡(jiǎn)單的任務(wù)在旁人觀察時(shí)表現(xiàn)更好;反之復(fù)雜的任務(wù)獨(dú)處表現(xiàn)更好。

本篇文章難度相對(duì)較低，總體題目難度適中，有圖表題。

詞匯題有考到simple(在兩個(gè)不同的lines, line 27 & line 36?)。

第三篇：科學(xué)對(duì)比

P1：Why Do Zebras Have Stripes? New Study Offers Strong Evidence

By Christine Dell’Amore

參考：httpss://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150113-zebras-stripes-evolution-animals-science-africa/

P2：Why Do Zebras Have Stripes? It’s Not for Camouflage

By Laura Poppick

兩篇文章都研究斑馬有條紋(stripes)對(duì)于自己的生存有什么優(yōu)勢(shì)?？壳捌_頭列出一系列的假說(shuō)(hypotheses) 然后Caro和她的同事用實(shí)驗(yàn)得出斑馬條紋是為了ban biting flies，文章結(jié)尾讓步提出實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)論的不確定性和需要more specific research。第二篇通過(guò)Larison的實(shí)驗(yàn)提出反駁意見(jiàn)，認(rèn)為斑馬條紋是為了regulate body temperature而不是avoid flies,注意第二篇文章結(jié)尾再次提到了Caro的實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)論，有考察觀點(diǎn)求同題。

第四篇：歷史政治(單篇文章)

本次歷史類話題完全改變前幾次真考考察經(jīng)典話題(女權(quán)/黑人運(yùn)動(dòng)/美國(guó)建國(guó)文獻(xiàn))的風(fēng)格，考到了Charles Dickens對(duì)于美國(guó)人民參與政治生活的評(píng)論。

第五篇：科學(xué)

Gut Bugs May Boost Flu Shot’s Effects

By Kelly Servick

文章主要通過(guò)實(shí)驗(yàn)來(lái)研究影響vaccine effectiveness的因素(intestinal bacteria) 能夠更好地讓抗體發(fā)揮作用，加強(qiáng)免疫系統(tǒng)的反應(yīng)，從而更好對(duì)抗流感病毒。結(jié)尾2道題目為圖表題。

主旨關(guān)鍵詞：immune response to flu vaccine effectiveness

本篇文章理解難度較高，主要是因?yàn)榇罅康膶W(xué)科生詞可能會(huì)對(duì)于部分考生的理解造成一定的障礙，而且文章的內(nèi)容相對(duì)陌生。

第五篇閱讀文章的閱讀原文：

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.”

第二部分：文法部分

本次考試文法部分可以說(shuō)是非常容易，以往的難度較高/易錯(cuò)題型，如就近修飾--本次沒(méi)有考察，句子刪除保留，詞匯題，introduction and conclusion, transition(previous/next sentence), Logical sequence等干擾選項(xiàng)設(shè)置迷惑性不強(qiáng)，但值得注意的是，關(guān)于同位語(yǔ)雙逗號(hào)的考察本次試卷出現(xiàn)了2次，希望所有考生一定要在今后的備考中引起高度重視。

詞匯題有考察advance和elaborate的區(qū)別，hazardous(修飾environment of outer space) , insights, reach conclusions的固定搭配等。

考察題型

1、純語(yǔ)法題型

--- 標(biāo)點(diǎn)符號(hào)題: 本次考試中逗號(hào), 冒號(hào), 分號(hào)的使用都有所涉及。 考察內(nèi)容都是之前OG和真題中出現(xiàn)過(guò)的知識(shí)點(diǎn), 沒(méi)有特別大的難度。

--- 標(biāo)點(diǎn)符號(hào)

--- 代詞指代

--- 句子合并題

--- 平行結(jié)構(gòu)題

--- 主謂一致/時(shí)態(tài)

--- 固定搭配與形近詞辨析(maybe/may be; weary/wary)

2、與文章相關(guān)的題型

--- 段落/全篇主旨題

--- 句子加減題/邏輯順序題: 根據(jù)上下文內(nèi)容進(jìn)行句子增加, 刪節(jié), 以及排序

--- 邏輯詞題(注意無(wú)邏輯關(guān)系的題目)

--- 文章結(jié)構(gòu)題

3、圖表題

--- 此次考試中出現(xiàn)的圖表題。需要結(jié)合文章內(nèi)容找出正確的選項(xiàng)。

文章主題：1 Agriculture Grows Up

conventional agriculture versus vertical agriculture

2、A Singer Finds Her Voice

(話題重復(fù)2017.11 北美真題第三篇，考點(diǎn)分布不同)

講一個(gè)的歌手Nina Simone是如何通過(guò)她的音樂(lè)推廣民權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)(Civil Right Movement)的。一開始Nina Simone對(duì)用音樂(lè)推動(dòng)政治活動(dòng)持懷疑態(tài)度，但她的朋友Hansberry鼓勵(lì)她最終獲得成功。

3、The Inner Working of Work

圍繞一個(gè)核心概念(Industrial and organizational psychology)展開，提出公司的productivity取決于員工的滿意程度，因此公司需要hire一些心理學(xué)去幫助提高employee job satisfaction從而促進(jìn)workplace culture and organization。

4、The Road to Recovery

講述瀕臨滅絕的物種沒(méi)有很好地被保護(hù)，原因是對(duì)于endangered species的定義過(guò)于模糊，比較了兩個(gè)法案ESA(對(duì)于endangered species分類更少更嚴(yán)格)和ICUN (有圖表)得出對(duì)“endangered species”更清晰的定義有利于提高決策效率。難點(diǎn)在于43題的圖表，比較了兩個(gè)法案對(duì)于endangered species的分類。

第三部分：數(shù)學(xué)

本次數(shù)學(xué)考試學(xué)員反應(yīng)出存在拼盤現(xiàn)象(使用部分老題)，至于以后會(huì)不會(huì)繼續(xù)延續(xù)這個(gè)模式，其實(shí)對(duì)于大家意義不大，我們需要做的仔細(xì)透徹的研究分析所有真題，而不是重復(fù)的規(guī)律。

本次數(shù)學(xué)考試考察要點(diǎn)都比較常規(guī)，統(tǒng)計(jì)的內(nèi)容也沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)過(guò)難的考點(diǎn)(比如confidence interval)，需要大家注意的知識(shí)點(diǎn)：

1、函數(shù)與方程(包括函數(shù)圖像的考察和實(shí)際應(yīng)用問(wèn)題)，占比較大，考察的是基本的運(yùn)算如解方程組，代數(shù)方程的表示，比較復(fù)雜的是方程中某一字母或數(shù)字所表達(dá)意思;

2、圓的性質(zhì)、相關(guān)計(jì)算公式和應(yīng)用(包括圓的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方程);

3、統(tǒng)計(jì)問(wèn)題(特征數(shù)，統(tǒng)計(jì)圖，相關(guān)概念理解等)，平均數(shù)，中位數(shù)依舊是考察目標(biāo)以及出題點(diǎn);

4、單位換算問(wèn)題。

第四部分：寫作部分原文

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.