【獨家】2016年3月5日新SAT考試真題解析

3月5日新SAT寫作題目的閱讀文章難度大，可以說在CB已經(jīng)公開的7道寫作題中排名靠前。(SAT寫作題閱讀原文附在文后)下面就讓還在美國的羅瓊老師來和大家分析分析~~

新SAT寫作
　　有別于舊SAT的寫作和任何一種國外考試的寫作，新SAT寫作采取的是“讀后感”的方式，即根據(jù)一篇文章來分析它的行文思路、證據(jù)、推理、修辭等等方面。每篇文章的要求都是一樣的，但是文章不同，來源不同，沒法做預(yù)測，也沒法套模板。寫文章時，可以面面俱到，把行文思路、證據(jù)、推理、修辭等方面逐一加以分析，也可以只抓一點，進行透徹的分析。

3月5日新SAT寫作文章
　　這篇文章字?jǐn)?shù)在750左右，符合OG里的說法。這篇文章的作者是E.J. Dionne，他是喬治城大學(xué)的教授，也是一位專欄作家。這是一篇政論性的文章，探討的是美國人對國家的義務(wù)。

對于牽涉到美國政治的文章，對于絕大多數(shù)的中國大陸考生都是陌生的，因為大家接觸太少了。很多同學(xué)反映讀不懂也是這種情況，生詞太多，背景信息知道太少。其實，仔細去讀這篇文章，大家會發(fā)現(xiàn)作者的POINT很清晰，即號召年輕人在服兵役之外為國家做貢獻，可以從事教育、醫(yī)療、環(huán)保等領(lǐng)域的工作。同學(xué)們完全可以從REASONING和EVIDENCE這2個方面來分析這篇文章，即作者用了什么樣的行文思路，怎么步步推進他的觀點，以及用哪些證據(jù)來佐證他的觀點。

如何備考新SAT寫作
　　首先，一定是加強閱讀能力，背單詞是逃不過的。另外，考生需要訓(xùn)練一種能力：在不能透徹的懂得文章每一個細節(jié)的情況下，如何找出自己所需要的信息，進行分析。

3月5日新SAT寫作原題原文
　　E.J. Dionne Jr.: A call for national service
　　(E.J. Dionne writes about politics in a twice-weekly column and on the PostPartisan blog. He is a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a government professor at Georgetown University and a commentator on politics for National Public Radio, ABC’s “This Week” and MSNBC. He is the author of “Why the Right Went Wrong.")
　　Here is the sentence in the Declaration of Independence we always remember: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
　　And here is the sentence we often forget: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.”
　　This, the very last sentence of the document, is what makes the better-remembered sentence possible. One speaks of our rights. Theother addresses our obligations. The freedoms we cherish are self-evident butnot self-executing. The Founders pledge something “to each other,” the commonly overlooked clause in the Declaration’s final pronouncement.

We find ourselves, 237 years after the Founders declared us a new nation, in a season of discontent, even surliness, about the experiment they launched. We are sharply divided over the very meaning of our founding documents, and we are more likely to invoke the word “we” in thecontext of “us versus them” than in the more capacious sense that includes every single American.
　　There are no quick fixes to our sense of disconnection, but there may be a way to restore our sense of what we owe each other across the lines of class, race, background — and, yes, politics and ideology.
　　Last week, the Aspen Institute gathered a politically diverse group of Americans under the banner of the “Franklin Project,” named after Ben, to declare a commitment to offering every American between the ages of 18 and 28 a chance to give a year of service to the country. The opportunities would include service in our armedforces but also time spent educating our fellow citizens, bringing them healthcare and preventive services, working with the least advantaged among us, and conserving our environment.

Service would not be compulsory, but it would be an expectation. And it just might become part of who we are.

The call for universal, voluntary service is being championed by retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, in league with two of the country’s foremost advocates of the cause,John Bridgeland, who served in the George W. Bush administration, and AlanKhazei, co-founder of City Year, one of the nation’s most formidable volunteer groups. The trio testifies to the non-ideological and nonpartisan nature ofthis cause, as did a column last week endorsing the idea from Michael Gerson, my conservative Post colleague.

“We’ve a remarkable opportunity now,” McChrystal says,“to move with the American people away from an easy citizenship that does notask something from every American yet asks a lot from a tiny few.” We do,indeed, owe something to our country, and we owe an enormous debt to those who have done tour after tour in Iraq and Afghanistan.

McChrystal sees universal service as transformative.“It will change how we think about America and how we think about ourselves,”he says. And as a former leader of an all-volunteer Army, he scoffs at the ideathat giving young Americans a stipend while they serve amounts to “paid volunteerism,” the phrase typically invoked by critics of service programs. “If you try to rely on unpaid volunteerism,” he said, “then you limit the people who can do it. . . . I’d like the people from Scarsdale to be paid the same as the people from East L.A.”

There are real challenges here. Creating the estimated 1 million service slots required to make the prospect of service truly universal will take money, from government and private philanthropy. Service,as McChrystal says, cannot just be a nice thing that well-off kids do when they get out of college. It has to draw in the least advantaged young Americans. In the process, it could open new avenues for social mobility, something the military has done for so many in the past.

Who knows whether the universal expectation of service would change the country as much as McChrystal hopes. But we have precious few institutions reminding us to join the Founders in pledging something to eachother. We could begin by debating this proposal in a way that frees us from the poisonous assumption that even an idea involving service to others must be part of some hidden political agenda. The agenda here is entirely open. It’s based on the belief that certain unalienable rights entail certain unavoidable responsibilities.

SAT考試相關(guān)閱讀：