2019年10月亞洲SAT答案

對一下答案，更好的規(guī)劃接下來的學(xué)習(xí)和安排。

整體分析

閱讀難度：4/5

語法難度：2.5/5

數(shù)學(xué)難度：2/5

寫作話題難度：3/5

閱讀錯1道390，2道380

語法錯1道370，2道350

數(shù)學(xué)錯1道770，2道750

閱讀答案

1-10：CDABC CCABD

11-20: BADCA BBDAA

21-30: ADBCD CAAAC

31-40: ABCBC DADAD

41-52: CBDAC ACBAC CA

第一篇

小說

文章作者：Anita Desai文章選自：The Artist ’s Life

文章大綱：主人公是一名叫Polly的小女孩。從小被送去畫畫的她喜歡畫紫色的波點花紋，而這個花紋正好和老師的領(lǐng)帶上的一樣，所以老師非常能夠理解她。但是當(dāng)Polly把畫拿回家給父母看時，卻得不到他們的認(rèn)同，這讓她變得憂郁。文章話題：女性成長代溝話題。

第二篇

科學(xué)

文章作者：Colleen Haight文章標(biāo)題：The Problem with Fair Trade Coffee

文章大綱：自由貿(mào)易咖啡產(chǎn)業(yè)對于不發(fā)達(dá)的國家一直有很重要的角色，一個世界咖啡組織設(shè)定了一個基準(zhǔn)價格，卻導(dǎo)致了咖啡質(zhì)量的下降。同時用了一個關(guān)于農(nóng)民種植了兩種咖啡豆，高于基準(zhǔn)價格的在咖啡組織內(nèi)售賣，低于基準(zhǔn)價格的在組織內(nèi)售賣，導(dǎo)致好的咖啡豆越來越好而差的咖啡豆越來越差的例子來支撐觀點。

第三篇

科學(xué)

文章作者：Paul B Wgnall文章標(biāo)題：The Worst of Times：How Life on Earth Survived Eighty Million Years of Extinctions

文章大綱：一開始強(qiáng)調(diào)了某種化石發(fā)現(xiàn)的重要性，然后通過一位教授的研究表明三疊紀(jì)生物的大滅絕導(dǎo)致了物種多樣性的急劇下降。但是，另外兩名研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)多樣性在混合的動物群體里相對更高。最后結(jié)論表明三疊紀(jì)中出現(xiàn)了兩次物種滅絕和一次物種恢復(fù)，同時從長遠(yuǎn)角度來看，多樣性的減少反而顯示了生物多樣性的穩(wěn)定。

第四篇

雙篇歷史

-1-文章作者：CAROLINE H. DALL文章標(biāo)題：The College, the Market, and the Court; Or Woman's Relation to Education, Labor, and Law

-2-文章標(biāo)題：Woman Suffrage -Cui Bono

文章大綱：雙篇對比，第一篇強(qiáng)調(diào)女性的真正需求是要政府給予實際的公民權(quán)利而不是抽象概念上的，女性需要投票權(quán)。雖然女性有了投票權(quán)，但是作者要求投票權(quán)不應(yīng)該建立于財富水平而應(yīng)該是教育水平。提出了兩個原因論證，第一是女性需要有能力保護(hù)自己，第二個是男女生來平等。同時提議了三條法律，反欺詐，反暴力和反對過分激進(jìn)的性別主義。

第二篇中提到，女性雖然對于他們自身權(quán)利的現(xiàn)狀是不滿的，但是大多數(shù)女性對于投票權(quán)的冷漠態(tài)度也是一種反抗形式，是她們對現(xiàn)狀不滿的證據(jù)。作者認(rèn)為，女性最大的弱點在于善良和仁慈，所以總是會去給予一些錯誤的事情原諒。

第五篇

科學(xué)

文章作者：Seth S Horowitz文章標(biāo)題：The Universal Sense: How Hearing Shapes the Mind

文章大綱：科學(xué)界在以前一致認(rèn)為蝌蚪的聽力差。但是作者發(fā)現(xiàn)以前的實驗都是在水里進(jìn)行的，導(dǎo)致環(huán)境對蝌蚪產(chǎn)生了干擾，所以他認(rèn)為應(yīng)該在和蝌蚪生活環(huán)境相近的自然環(huán)境里進(jìn)行試驗。最后，他的實驗結(jié)果表明其實蝌蚪的聽力非常好。

語法答案

1-11: ADDCD BDBAC B

12-22: DDCDA BCAAB C

23-33: DBBCD DBBAC D

34-44: CCBAA BDDCA A

第一篇：悠悠球

Pedro Flore玩的悠悠球因為樣式和普通的不一樣引起了很多人的圍觀，這讓他發(fā)現(xiàn)了商機(jī)，注冊了自己的商標(biāo)，量產(chǎn)悠悠球，讓其風(fēng)靡一時。在這時，F(xiàn)lore讓一個叫Duncan的人接手了他的生意，自己去世界各地宣傳悠悠球。

第二篇：生態(tài)旅游

用了兩個例子，第一個講了一個建議人怎么保護(hù)環(huán)境的在線學(xué)習(xí)程序，第二個講述了阿拉斯加的生態(tài)旅游管理。

第三篇：深海恒溫魚類

講述了opah這種恒溫魚類動物，通過兩種方式調(diào)節(jié)體溫：快速扇動側(cè)鰭和腮部位靠在一起的進(jìn)出血管。

第四篇：加速播放音頻

因為人們的生活節(jié)奏加快了，想要快速讀完某些書所以加速播放音頻的軟件變得很流行。但其實這種方式的弊端很多，首先會讓被聽的故事失去節(jié)奏和必要的有意義的停頓，同時不利于聽者把握故事的主線，分清主次情節(jié)。

數(shù)學(xué)答案

Section 3:

1-10：AACCB BDBAD 11-15: BCADA

16: 1/4 17: 4 18: 3 19:100 20: 5

Section 4:

1-10: CABDA BBACD 11-20: CCBAB CDACC

21-30: CDABD BBDAB

31: 150 32: 11 33: 4 34: 6 35: 15.5 36: 65 37: 1.5 38: 18

基本考點

代數(shù)部分：解方程，一次函數(shù)斜率，二次函數(shù)里二次項系數(shù)的意義，指數(shù)函數(shù)考察識別圖表中的數(shù)字變化是linear還是exponential。幾何部分：圓的方程。統(tǒng)計部分：ratio，probability，sample selection，mean，median，range。

寫作原文

寫作文章選自2013/09/04的TIMES雜志

文章標(biāo)題：Do Women Really Want Equality?

原文如下：

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.