考试回顾｜10月SAT说好不哭，我还能怎样呢？另有真题附送

本次考试最需要关注的两件事：

1. 转考：考试当天，被临时转考，如韩国济州岛考场，转到2020年5月；如新加坡安德森考场，约50人被临时转考；其他亚太国家和地区，例如马来西亚、台湾、越南等也有转考消息，最夸张的直接转到2021年10月。

2. 延迟：香港所有考试中心的SAT考试被推迟了三个小时。

以上两事件对考生考试心情多多少少会造成一些影响，特别是很多当季申请者把宝押到这最后一场考试上了，才导致这么被动，这里再次建议高一、二的考生们，尽量早做规划早出分，不要把风险都积累到最后关头。

至于考试难度，这次亚太整体难度在历年10月中偏低，和18年10月亚太相仿，和16年10月亚太、17年10月亚太还是有差距的。Curve有可能会收紧。

与今年8月的北美卷相仿，本次国际考区主体试卷是19年6月北美考试的其中一套实验卷，编号为NAPG 307，这套属于小众试卷，市面上并没有流传。

以下是6月NAPG307的curve 参考：

阅读错1题400，错2题390，错3题380，错4题380，错5题370；

语法错1题380，错2题370，错3题360，错4题350，错5题340；

数学错1题770，错2题750，错3题730，错4题720，错5题710。

接下来我们一起详细回顾一下本次sat考试的具体内容：

阅读部分

整体难度属于中上，主要难度还是来源于双篇的历史题材。

第一篇是毫无悬念的小说，此次选自the Artists’ life：

故事的主人公喜欢绘画，文章的前半部分主要讲述了主人公的绘画风格受到了其老师的影响。文章的中部描述了主人公具体地作画。故事的最后提及了绘画需要拥有对自然的感知，主人公也意识到对于自然的改造是对于艺术的破坏。

第二篇是社科类文章，比较简单，讨论了Fair Trade Coffee的一系列问题，大致内容如下：

世界上的许多国家都靠出口咖啡支持着国家的经济，即使是发展相对落后的国家也不例外。主要的出口对象是以美国和欧洲为主的发达国家。为了提升咖啡出口方的经济状况，相关机构尝试了某种方法，好像是定价标准，不过该方法也带来了一些争议，比如说咖啡的质量下降。

第三篇是科学文章，出乎意料的难，主要讲的是地球生命如何从大灭绝中生存下来，出现了很多化石研究，以及物种演化，信息量很大，生词和专业术语出现频录较高，使得整体阅读理解不流畅。

第四篇为本次考试难度最大历史双篇，回归主流女权问题

第一篇的标题很长，主要的关键词有woman和law。主要讲了女性看重的是稳定的选举权。她们认为只要通过这种方式，自己的权利才能得到尊重和保护，才能谈及真正的男女平等。但是从过去到现在的现实表明女性还未实现该目标，她们有理由表达自己的信念，不仅是为了女性，同时也为了整个社会。

第二篇的”Woman Suffrage”话锋突变，谈到了选举权对于大多数女性缺乏足够的吸引力，对于社会的不满存在着夸大的成分。在女权斗争中她们发现真正的对手反而是自己。

第五篇科学类文章讨论了蝌蚪的听力的悖论。之前的实验中由于水的干扰导致了实验者们认为蝌蚪听力差，但是作者实验需要在自然环境下进行，结果与之前的实验结论相反，蝌蚪有着非常不错的听力。

语法部分

难度中等偏下, 考察题型中规中矩，考察较多的考点如下:

1.语法规则题: 标点(逗号、冒号、破折号混合考察), 定语从句, 代词等.

2.篇章题: 段落主旨题, 过渡句, 简洁性原则, 逻辑关系词（对moreover的考察, 题目中出现了to these ends等短语），增减句子题（对删除句子的具体原因需要仔细辨别）等.

3.词汇题：没有很偏僻，考到了invoke和evoke的区别，属于常见形近词辨析。

第一篇讲了悠悠球的发展史。Pedro通过观察到在公园玩的悠悠球和普通悠悠球不一样发现了商机。于是Pedro进行了一系列商业化操作，使得他的产品受到了市场的青睐。后来他的公司被邓肯接手，随之而来的是悠悠球的世界化，全世界更多的人知道了邓肯的产品，从而忽略了真正的始作俑者其实是Pedro。

第二篇讲了生态旅游。重点描述了两个例子，第一个是与在线学习程序相关，人们可以从中得到保护环境的建议。第二个讨论了阿拉斯加的生态旅游业。有经验导游带领的小团体可以进入阿拉斯加旅游，同时节电技术也被住在营地的游客使用。

第三篇给同学们展示了奇妙的深海恒温鱼类。opah这种鱼虽然是endotherm恒温动物，但是可以通过两种方式调节体温：第一，通过侧鳍的运动产生高热量；第二，逆流热交换系统。

Opah主要生活在深水区域，行动敏捷，很多方面都像恒温捕食动物。

第四篇分析了speed listening的弊端。第一，加速播放会破坏故事表达的趣味性。讲述人有自己的节奏，通过说书技巧，让故事更加生动形象。第二，speed listening要求听众大脑不停地运转，短时间处理大量信息，导致听众抓不住重点。

数学部分

本次数学比较简单，考察的概率题目也很基础，细心的同学都应该答对，不然可能会受到curve的无情制裁。

主要考点包括：

1. 一元一次函数

2. 二元一次函数

3. 散点图

4. 统计类

5. 圆的方程

6. 柱状图

写作部分

本次亚太写作关于女权，属于常规话题。

Do woman really want equality？

Not one imagined strictly by number

1. 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.

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

最后

以上就是10月SAT考试回顾的全部内容啦，另外10月考试真题小可爱已经整理好啦！有需要10月SAT考试真题的同学们可以在公众号回复186获取呦~

END

文章来源与微信公众号：智思北美标化提分站（ID：zhisiedu），获取更多资讯！