2017年10月7日SAT考情回顧分析

SAT閱讀測驗

《北美考區》關於作者和叔叔去自家商店（墨水和鋼筆）看經營狀況，聽老闆講墨水和鋼筆的學問，進而延伸到人生意義，這篇文章跟亞太考區的小說選材有異曲同工之妙。
《亞太考區》亞太小說選自Barbara的Flight Behaviors。故事裡面母子兩位主要人物去郊區看蝴蝶，但兒子眼睛看不見，文章主要講解母親的一些內心思考。看來CB這次小說的選題，偏向性非常明顯，在亞太和北美傾向性一致。

《北美考區》閱讀的第二篇依舊是社科類，主要講述有學者提出目前網路的廣泛使用會改變人類的記憶模式，並通過四組社會實驗佐證。
《亞太考區》社科類文章是「關於凱恩斯經濟學和佈雷頓森林體系相比較」，情報官認為與北美相比要難一些。第一段背景為二戰後大國開會建議佈雷頓森林體系重建國際經濟秩序，並提到了一個重要人物凱恩斯。第二段和第三段講解凱恩斯的觀點。第四段講解的是凱恩斯對於會議結果滿意。第五段講解的是佈雷頓森林體系的好處，中間一個轉折（此處出題），指出這個體系真正的支柱是美國。第六段講解的是19 70年代，美國通貨膨脹被迫貨幣貶值（此處出題），佈雷頓森林體系崩潰。

《北美考區》講了一種魚（guppy）在實驗室環境和自然環境下，繁殖能力和後代生長狀態會受捕食者數量的影響，即捕食者越多，後代會越多，但重量會變小。
《亞太考區》的第三篇科學文章關於(Gold in trees may hint at buried treasure)，與北美一樣同屬「實驗結論類」文章，文章結構簡單和觀點清晰，算是較為簡單的文章題材。

《北美考區》第四篇的歷史和亞太考區依舊一致：關於女權和奴隸制，不同的是亞太考區是以雙篇的形式出現，北美是單獨文章，女權和奴隸制是歷史類文章比較鍾愛的題材。
《亞太考區》的雙篇文章都是針對林肯總統任期(Lincoln presidency)的貢獻來討論。
第一篇文章的作者是著名的黑人人權運動家Frederick Douglass於1876的演講，演講核心為林肯雖然以不擴散奴隸制口號贏得了選舉，但是主要照顧白人的利益，沒有顧及黑人的利益，黑人的狀況甚至變得更糟糕。 第二篇文章作者是Booker Washington的演講，盛讚林肯是emancipator，benefactor of all，主要argument是林肯解放了黑奴，也讓白人自食其力，促進了經濟的發展。

《北美考區》北美第五篇是科學（雙篇），主要講述了抗體和抗原。第一篇講的是新抗體的研製比較困難，而抗原容易有抗藥性；第二篇講一種抗體研製的原理，本篇科學類文章難度總體適中。
《亞太考區》亞太考區則是關於海底地貌的選材，難度和北美差不多。海底地貌（Hills等）形成主要原因，以前理論核心是板塊運動（斷層fault）導致了這些地貌的形成。新理論是火山所致，火山又跟地球的軌道有關，軌道運動會引起潮汐海平面的變化，引起海地壓力變化導致火山。又因為地球的ice ages與軌道有關，所以現在的海地地貌能提示ice age。

此外，本次考試閱讀部分進行了加試，考察了雙篇科學，主要探討關於原始火星，其實是wet not warm 的假設。

SAT文法測驗

《北美考區》國家為了緩解交通保護環境，促進大家使用公共交通，準備推行巴士免費政策，文章主要從經濟、社會角度討論這項政策的利弊。
《亞太考區》關於職業，互聯網對新聞工作者的影響。

《北美考區》隨著數位相機的普及化，先前的拍照技術漸漸失傳。文章主要介紹目前某些攝影家依然會用wet plate photography，討論了這項技術的原理和利弊。
《亞太考區》對於犬科動物玩耍行為的研究，包含玩耍的種類和與族間競爭的聯繫。文章難度適中偏易。

《北美考區》主要講解城市建築師的underground work。
《亞太考區》美國每四年進行一次總統選舉，競選成為焦點話題，候選人會進行「辯論」，但這對改變人們的投票而言影響較小。

《北美考區》暫缺
《亞太考區》文章講述兩兄妹及他們的寓所在法國先鋒派藝術時期對藝術界的影響。難度適中偏難。

SAT數學測驗

數學部分難度適中，與往常題目難度持平，沒有所謂簡單很多。所有知識點和平時訓練的完全一致，沒有太過冷門或太偏的知識點出現。比較突出的是考了多題「兩條線交點」的題目，有兩條直線也有直線跟曲線的交點。「截距」的考察也很多，有考察截距的值、也有經典的截距實際意義考察。另外還有兩道關於「二元一次方程有無數解和沒有解」的情況。

涉及到的知識點：

• 三個函數的交點問題（圖像題）
• 不等式組的最優解和可行域（圖像問題；實際問題）
• 複雜圖像的平移問題
• 參照方程式的恆成立和恆不成立問題（考了四題）
• 二次函式定義和頂點、交點式
• 指數的定義
• 相似三角形
• 虛數的定義和計算
• tenth、hundredth的四捨五入
• 單位換算

SAT寫作測驗

作文部分的閱讀難度不高，相對還是比較好寫的。
文章來源：Lighten up, Sir David. Our wildlife is safe
文章作者：Matt Ridley

Prompt: How does Matt Ridley build on his argument that human population do not have adverse effect on the natural environment in the future?

考試文章原文如下：
Lighten up, Sir David. Our wildlife is safe
By Matt Ridley Sep. 12, 2013, The Times

• Publicising his imminent new series about the evolution of animals, Sir David Attenborough said in an interview this week that he thought a reduction in human population during this century is impossible and “we’re lucky to be living when we are, because things are going to get worse”. People will look back in another 100 years “at a world that was less crowded, full of natural wonders, and healthier”.
  
  
• His is a common view and one I used to share. He longs for people to enjoy the open spaces and abundant herds of game that he has been fortunate enough to see. To that end he thinks it vital that there should be fewer of us.
  
  
• Ever so politely, I would now passionately disagree with the two premises of his argument. It’s actually quite likely, rather than impossible, that population will be falling by the end of this century and it is also quite likely that the people alive then will have lots more wilderness to explore and wildlife to admire than today.
  
  
• The rate at which world population grows has roughly halved from more than 2 per cent a year in the 1960s to roughly 1 per cent a year now. Even the total number of people added to the annual population has been dropping for nearly 30 years. If those declines continue, they will hit zero in about 2070 — not much more than 50 years from now. In recent decades the birth rate has fallen in every part of the world. Fertility in Bangladesh has fallen from nearly 7 children per woman in the 1960s to just over 2 today; Kenya from 8 to 4.5; Brazil 5.7 to 1.8; Iran 6.8 to 1.9; Ireland 3.9 to 2…
  
  
• Europe, Asia and Latin America have already gone through this transition and most countries are producing babies at or below replacement rate of 2.2 per woman, at which population stabilises (without immigration). Africa, for so long written off as a special (basket) case, is following suit almost exactly. For this reason alone, I suspect the world population will stop growing and begin to shrink even earlier than 2070 and almost certainly within this century. But even if it does not, there is good reason to reassure Sir David that our great grandchildren will have more wildlife to look at than he has had.
  
  
• An ingenious study by scientists at Rockefeller University in New York has recently calculated that even with population continuing to grow, and even with people eating more food and especially more meat, we have almost certainly already passed “peak farmland”, because of the rate at which fertilisers are improving yields. (Or we would have done if not for biofuels projects.) We will feed nine or ten billion people in 2070 from a considerably smaller acreage than we need to feed seven billion today.
  
  
• Land sparing is already occurring on a grand scale. Forest cover is increasing in many parts of the world, from Scotland to Bangladesh. Wildlife populations are booming in Europe (deer, bears, boar, otters), in the polar regions (walrus, seals, penguins, whales) and North America (turkeys, coyotes, bison, geese) and this is happening fastest in the richest countries. According to one recent report, animal populations grew by 6 per cent in Europe, North America and Northern Asia between 1970 and 2012, while shrinking in tropical regions. There is almost a perfect correlation between the severity of conservation problems and poverty, because the richer people get, the less they try to live off the land and compete with nature — the less they seek bushmeat and charcoal from the forest.
  
  
• Once again, Africa may spring a pleasant surprise. Over the past four decades agricultural yields in Africa hardly budged while they doubled or quadrupled in most of Asia. That is almost entirely down to a dearth of fertiliser and it is beginning to change. If African yields were to rise, the acreage devoted to farmland globally would start to fall even faster, releasing more and more land for “re-wilding”. The great herds and flocks that so delight Sir David would reassemble in more and more places. The happy conclusion is that making people better off and making nature better off are not in opposition; they go hand in hand.