8月北美SAT考情回顾：涉及多套旧题，难度偏高！【内含试题领取】-新东方前途出国

 

　　8月北美SAT考试落下帷幕，据同学们反映本次考试难度略高，特别是阅读和数学的部分题目。

　　据不完全统计，在本次8月北美考试中，目前已知完整阅读篇章情况的卷子已经有六套，还有一些部分篇章已知的卷子，说明CB把本次北美考试当成了往年的6月考试，大量使用实验卷，因此本次北美考试的用卷实际至少有十套。

　　其中考得人数最多的一套是重复使用2019年6月多套卷中一套，代号NAPN314，还有少部分同学直接遇到了重复使用2018年12月北美卷。

　　以下是本次北美SAT的考情回顾：

　　阅读部分

　　本次阅读部分相对较难，对同学们的阅读能力有一定要求。

　　1. 小说部分

　　第一篇文章讲了一个男生和女老师之间的爱情故事，从中穿插了大量具体的心理活动描写。

　　另一篇讲述的是主人公是一名作曲家，说有一位父亲带着儿子见这位作曲大师，后来作曲家看见这位父亲作的曲之后感到十分满意，还试弹了一下，

　　2. 伟大文献部分

　　第一篇文章是作家Oscar Wilde的文章“The Soul of Man under Socialism。

　　原文链接：

　　https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

　　第二篇文章是来自英国社会主义活动家William Morris的讲课集“Hopes and Fears for Arts”。

　　原文链接：

　　http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3773/3773-h/3773-h.htm

　　3. 社会科学部分

　　通过两个实验，说明音乐如何鼓舞运动员。一个实验证实了这个推断，另一个实验分析了原因。

　　4. 自然科学部分

　　一篇文章讲一种鸟如果在另一种鸟的巢里长大，择偶行为会如何被影响。在这方面上，雌性和雄性的表现是不同的。

　　另一篇文章讲科学家为了研究pupfish为什么在保护区内、身体形态发生了变化，做的一系列实验。

　　5. 历史部分

　　主要考战争对黑人民主权利拓展的影响（包括一战、独立战争、南北战争）。

　　第一篇文章观点是每次打完仗都有新的民主拓展；第二篇文章的观点是打仗没有什么用，战争后依然存在不公平。

　　语法部分

　　1. 篇章理解

　　在一篇文章中，选承上启下的句子或者段落的第一句话，以及要求对句子进行排序等等。

　　2. 词义辨析

　　不只是辨析单词的意思，还有它的感情色彩的区别。所以在备考时，要注意对词语感情色彩的把握。

　　数学部分

　　数学难度总体正常，部分题目较难。但最重要的，还是细心，才能拿到高分。

　　数学部分涉及到的考试内容，包括指数函数解析式、求角度、圆的标准方程式、指数幂的计算等等。

　　写作部分

　　写作部分文章题目是：Is it time for a shorter workweek?

　　作者列举了应该缩短工作时间的原因，包括提高生活质量、提供更多的工作机会、更好地照料家庭等等。

　　写作题目原文（滑动查看）：

　　Throughout the past year, we have heard paid leave debated in statehouses and on the campaign trail. I am all in favor of paid leave. As I have argued elsewhere, it would enable more people — especially those in lower-paying jobs — to take time off to deal with a serious illness or the care of another family member, including a newborn child.

　　But we shouldn’t stop with paid leave. We should also consider shortening the standard workweek. Such a step would be gender-neutral and would not discriminate between the very different kinds of time pressures faced by adults. It might even help to create more jobs.

　　The standard workweek is 40 hours — eight hours a day for five days a week. It’s been that way for a long time. Back in 1900, the typical factory worker spent 53 hours on the job, one-third more hours than we spend today. The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938 and set maximum hours at 40 per week. Amazingly, more than three-quarters of a century after passage of the FLSA, there has been no further decline in the standard workweek. Not only has the legal standard remained unchanged, but also 40 hours has become the social and cultural norm.

　　What’s going on here? Economists predicted that as we became more prosperous we would choose to work fewer hours. That hasn’t happened. Instead, we have kept on working at about the same pace as we did earlier in our history, pouring all of the gains from productivity growth into ever-higher levels of consumption: bigger houses, more electronic gadgets and fancier cars. With increased prosperity, people are buying more and more stuff, but they don’t have any more time to enjoy it. A reduction in the standard workweek would improve the quality of life, especially for those in hourly jobs who have benefited hardly at all from economic growth in recent decades.

　　Two-earner couples would also benefit. Among couples between ages 25 and 54, the number of hours worked increased by 20 percent between 1969 and 2000, from 56 hours to 67 hours (for both husband and wife combined). As Heather Boushey notes in her new book, “Finding Time,” we no longer live in a world where there is a “silent partner” in every business enterprise, the iconic “American Wife” who takes care of the children and the millions of details of daily living. With a shorter workweek, both men and women would have more time for everything from cutting the grass to cooking dinner with no presumption about who does what.

　　Although much of the debate this year has been about work-family balance, empty-nesters or singles without young children might also welcome a shorter workweek. For them, it would provide the chance to follow their dream of becoming an artist, a boat builder or the creator of their own small business.

　　Shorter hours could have another benefit: more jobs for workers who would otherwise be left behind by technological change. Many economists believe that as existing jobs are replaced by machines and artificial intelligence, new jobs will be created in technical, management and service fields. But will this happen fast enough or at sufficient scale to reemploy all those who now find themselves without decent-paying work? I doubt it.

　　A shorter workweek might help to spread the available jobs around. Germany and other European countries, along with a few U.S. states, used this strategy during the Great Recession. It kept more people on the job but at shorter hours and reduced unemployment. Using a similar strategy to deal with automation and long-term joblessness, although controversial, should not be dismissed out of hand.

　　Of course, shorter hours can mean lower total pay. But in one typical survey published in the Monthly Labor Review, 28 percent of the respondents said they would give up a day’s pay for one fewer day of work per week. Any new movement to reduce the work week would need to be phased in slowly, with flexibility for both employers and employees to negotiate adjustments around the standard. Yet if done correctly, the transition could be accomplished with little or no reduction in wages, just smaller raises as productivity improvement was invested in more free time. When Henry Ford reduced the workweek from six to five days in 1926, he did not cut wages. He assumed that both productivity and consumption would rise, and his example encouraged other employers to follow suit.

　　I am not talking about reducing hours for those of us who want to spend long hours at work because we enjoy it. We would still be free to work 24-7, tied to our electronic devices, and no longer knowing exactly when work begins and ends. A new hours standard would primarily affect hourly (nonexempt) employees. These are the people in the less glamorous jobs at the bottom of the ladder, many of them single parents. Right now they finish work exhausted only to come home to a “second shift” that may be equally exhausting. A reduction in the standard workweek would almost certainly improve the quality of life for these hard-pressed and overworked Americans.

　　By all means, let’s enact a paid leave policy, but let’s also debate some even bigger ideas — ones that could lead to greater work-life balance now, and more job opportunities in the longer run.

　　以上是8月SAT北美考情回顾~ 在线咨询