5月新SAT真題（閱讀+答案）

考情匯總

1、難點(diǎn)還是集中在閱讀上，小說(shuō)和雙篇文章登頂此次最難的兩篇。

2、此次考試的語(yǔ)法部分沒(méi)有特別難的問(wèn)題，考生均反映難度適中。

3、寫(xiě)作部分選取的文章非常有利于考生展開(kāi)分析！

4、此次考試數(shù)學(xué)非常容易，就連北美的同學(xué)（美國(guó)人）都反映此次數(shù)學(xué)幾乎無(wú)壓力！

5、加試部分為數(shù)學(xué)，難度依舊非常低。

閱讀部分

第一篇：小說(shuō)

小說(shuō)選自美國(guó)經(jīng)典現(xiàn)實(shí)主義小說(shuō) Sister Carrie，作者為 Theodore Dreiser，最早出版于1900年。小說(shuō)描述了一個(gè)貧困的鄉(xiāng)村姑娘來(lái)到大城市生活，內(nèi)心向往富足的生活。為了擺脫窮困，先后跟推銷(xiāo)員和酒店經(jīng)理同居，最后歷經(jīng)磨難，終成一個(gè)著名演員。

小說(shuō)截取的部分在論述 Carrie 在看一出關(guān)于紐約奢華生活的舞臺(tái)劇。臺(tái)上演員華衣美服，居所裝修華麗，生活應(yīng)有盡有。Carrie 不免生出羨慕向往之心。

舞臺(tái)劇還體現(xiàn)了這些生活在理想狀態(tài)人還收到感情愛(ài)情嫉妒的折磨，這更讓Carrie 羨慕，誰(shuí)不愿意坐在金椅子里發(fā)愁，誰(shuí)會(huì)不愿意在灑了香水的掛毯、有坐墊的家具和穿著制服的仆人那樣的條件下受些折磨呢？

回到她小小的 flat（套間），Carrie 暗暗下決心，假如我不能過(guò)上那樣的生活，我就等于沒(méi)有活過(guò)，或者說(shuō)自己活過(guò)。

第二篇、自然科學(xué)科研型文章

研究的主要目的在于探究人類大腦如何區(qū)分現(xiàn)實(shí)和虛擬（廣告/小說(shuō)人物/童話)信息。

研究者呈現(xiàn)給受試者不同的場(chǎng)景：一，廣播聽(tīng)到或報(bào)紙閱讀到關(guān)于布什(總統(tǒng))和灰姑娘，二，跟總統(tǒng)或跟灰姑娘共進(jìn)晚餐。然后利用 MRL 研究他們大腦不同區(qū)域的活躍度。

現(xiàn)實(shí)和虛擬信息都會(huì)激起大腦某些區(qū)域比如管記憶的海馬溝。不同的是，現(xiàn)實(shí)信息還會(huì)激起獨(dú)特的一個(gè)腦區(qū)域，這個(gè)腦區(qū)域跟短時(shí)記憶和注意力有關(guān)。一直相對(duì)，虛擬的信息會(huì)激起一個(gè)跟語(yǔ)言相關(guān)的腦區(qū)域。

研究者后來(lái)又在另一撥受試者重復(fù)了實(shí)驗(yàn)，這次根據(jù)跟受試者現(xiàn)實(shí)相關(guān)的程度設(shè)置信息。結(jié)果還是成立，研究者進(jìn)一步拓展，現(xiàn)實(shí)和虛擬其實(shí)跟不在于人物本身的現(xiàn)實(shí)程度，更跟信息與受試者現(xiàn)實(shí)生活的相關(guān)度有關(guān)。

第三篇 自然科學(xué)文章

講述野貓到家貓的變化，研究其中的基因變化過(guò)程。

通過(guò)對(duì)比22種家貓和4種夜貓的基因組，科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)13種基因組發(fā)生變化，就是這些變化導(dǎo)致夜貓可以被馴化。

在文章后來(lái)提到了，家貓身上的一些細(xì)胞有遷移變化的現(xiàn)象。也就是經(jīng)過(guò)了所謂的基因突變，這個(gè)改變會(huì)對(duì)貓的性情產(chǎn)生比較大的影響，讓貓變得容易馴化。

最后，在文章的結(jié)尾處提問(wèn)為什么相比貓，狗更容易被馴化。是因?yàn)槿嗽隈Z化狗之前做了狗的篩選，篩選出類易于被馴化的狗，而貓則不是。

第四篇：歷史類雙篇文章

考到了美國(guó)歷史上著名的“堪薩斯-內(nèi)布拉斯加法案”，這個(gè)法案本身是對(duì)奴隸制的一個(gè)妥協(xié)，激化了國(guó)內(nèi)廢奴運(yùn)動(dòng)。

此次雙篇文章的作者分別是史蒂芬·道格拉斯，和查爾斯·桑諾。其中前者基于自己的利益角度出發(fā)，認(rèn)為奴隸制應(yīng)該在國(guó)內(nèi)存在妥協(xié)，即便要廢除，也應(yīng)該把這樣的決定留給人民。

而查爾斯的觀點(diǎn)則相當(dāng)激進(jìn)，認(rèn)為奴隸制的存在就是不可被容忍的，所謂的“堪薩斯-內(nèi)布拉斯加法案”就是一個(gè)騙局，人們連自己的政府都無(wú)法選擇，怎么會(huì)有權(quán)力去選擇要不要廢奴。

第五篇：自然科學(xué)文章

主要講述哈勃望遠(yuǎn)鏡的一個(gè)探測(cè)歷史的功能。目前哈勃望遠(yuǎn)鏡可以到五塊不同天空的宇宙組裝近紅外深超星系遺產(chǎn)技術(shù)（the Cosmic Assembly Near-infraredDeep Extragalactic Legacy Survey）來(lái)測(cè)量五塊代表性天空。探測(cè)到一億年前宇宙的形態(tài) 。

這個(gè)研究有利于人類探索歷史進(jìn)程。同時(shí)，文章后半部分提到了哈勃望遠(yuǎn)鏡在不同領(lǐng)域做出的研究成果、采集數(shù)據(jù)的有效性，同時(shí)提出這些數(shù)據(jù)是完全公開(kāi)的，有助于科學(xué)家采用分析。

語(yǔ)法部分

語(yǔ)法部分這次考試難度中等，考察范圍都是常規(guī)考點(diǎn)。

同學(xué)們一直很頭疼的詞匯部分，一道考察了 relent, loose up 和 cave 在語(yǔ)境里的 styleand tone，另一道則需要辨析 excessive, prolific, magnanimous 的意思。

語(yǔ)篇部分總體難度適中，值得注意的是會(huì)幾個(gè)涉及到對(duì)段落開(kāi)頭部分的考察，包括段落首句是否該添加額外句子，兩個(gè)段落之間過(guò)渡句以及句子排序（before the first sentence），需要大家對(duì)于段落內(nèi)容有整體的把握。

由于此部分難度較低，學(xué)生對(duì)文章內(nèi)容的反饋并不是非常全面，考到的Sherkock文章倒是讓考生們甚為放松，考完了還在拿著個(gè)開(kāi)玩笑。

第一篇：關(guān)于垃圾填埋場(chǎng)改建的問(wèn)題，改成公園之后會(huì)讓整個(gè)環(huán)境更好。

第二篇：關(guān)于神探Sherlock的小說(shuō)創(chuàng)作問(wèn)題，作者由于覺(jué)得整天構(gòu)思Sherlock的故事太費(fèi)腦子了，于是讓Sherlock跟反面人物決斗之后死掉了。但這樣的結(jié)果顯然不能讓讀者滿意，所以作者最后只好復(fù)活了Sherlock，并繼續(xù)燒腦地寫(xiě)這個(gè)故事。

數(shù)學(xué)部分

此次美國(guó)本土同學(xué)反應(yīng)的難點(diǎn)還是在函數(shù)圖像上，此次考試考到了一個(gè)圓的半徑計(jì)算，很多本土同學(xué)略一激動(dòng)，把算出來(lái)的直徑給寫(xiě)上了，考完之后一對(duì)答案后悔連連。所以根據(jù)大家此次的反應(yīng)，還是要繼續(xù)練習(xí)，不要放松自己平時(shí)的計(jì)時(shí)訓(xùn)練。

寫(xiě)作部分

原文如下：

Adapted from the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, “Base food labeling on fact, not fear" ©2014 by the Los Angeles Times. Originally published May 5, 2014.

【1】The scientific evidence on genetically engineered food, which has been around for two decades, indicates that it is as safe for human consumption as any other food. A California bill that would require the labeling of bioengineered food — whose DNA has been modified in the laboratory to introduce certain traits — caters to a scare campaign that is not based on solid evidence.

【2】If a consumer has personal concerns about genetically modified food, there are other ways to avoid it. Trader Joe's, for example, has announced that food sold under its label contains no genetically engineered ingredients. There are apps and Internet sites to inform consumers about other foods. And companies that do not bioengineer their foods are certainly free to say so on their labels. But the science does not support mandatory labeling.

【3】State Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) has said that her bill doesn't make judgments about whether genetically engineered food is inherently good or bad but merely informs consumers. Yet the wording says otherwise. It's full of negative declarations about such food, with no mention of the positives. "United States government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of genetic material into plants via genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants or allergens in foods and create new toxicants or allergens with consequent health concerns," the bill says. It doesn't note that hundreds of studies, many by independent scientists who took no industry money, have found no credible evidence that bioengineered food has actually done any of those things, or is dangerous in any way to human health. Reviews by the American Medical Assn., the Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Sciences have all concluded that genetically engineered food appears to be as safe as any other.

【4】That's not to say there are no downsides. Studies have raised legitimate concerns, for instance, that bioengineered crops designed to withstand the herbicide glyphosate, more commonly known by the Monsanto brand name Roundup, encourage farmers to overuse it, fostering the growth of resistant weeds. The AMA, though it has said that genetically engineered food should not be labeled, has also called on the federal government to require more safety testing before new bioengineered products can be marketed.

【5】These issues are worth consideration, but labeling would not resolve either one. Most farms use pesticides, including some more dangerous than glyphosate, but their products don't have to be labeled accordingly. Labeling requirements should have logical consistency; the campaign to label genetically engineered foods doesn't.

【6】SB 1381 would require conspicuous yet imprecise labels notifying consumers that the food contains some genetically engineered ingredients, without making it clear what the engineering was meant to accomplish. Food companies are developing products for reasons other than to make pesticide use easy, such as building resistance into crops, like oranges, that are threatened by disease, or creating non-allergenic forms of some grains. But the labels wouldn't give these details. They would serve mainly to frighten grocery shoppers by implying that there is something wrong with the food, without making them better informed. And the labels would be so ubiquitous as to be almost meaningless; it's widely estimated that 70% to 80% of the packaged food in conventional supermarkets contains genetically engineered ingredients.

【7】There are more worrisome agricultural practices that do affect human health, especially the overuse of antibiotics in livestock. "There is strong evidence that some antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by antibiotic use in food animals," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports. Yet no one has been campaigning for labels on meat that comes from antibiotic-treated livestock. As with bioengineered food, this is best dealt with by appropriate safety regulations, not labels.

【8】There's a limit to what manufacturers can tell consumers about their food — labels can't enumerate every possible or perceived concern. Labeling laws should set a priority on providing information that significantly affects consumer health. They should be based on facts, not fear.