沃邦獨家|5月亞太SAT考情速遞(附全部真題+詳解)


來源:   時間:2019-05-07 17:48:12

炎暑將至萬物長,天光明媚風清揚~今天5月4號的這場新SAT考試是2019年的第二場考試,也是自改革后全球范圍第38場新SAT考試,即亞洲15考試(School Day和補考除外)。
 
在2018年下半年中8月北美場次的重復舊題,10亞洲場次成績延遲,12月整體評分苛刻等事件一度把CB推至風口浪尖。然而最近的3月9號亞太場次Curve依舊較北美場次更加嚴格,也無形之中給大陸考生帶來分數上更大的競爭壓力,在這樣的大背景下有還是有不少學生決定頂住AP考試的雙重壓力參加5月份這場SAT爭取趁熱打鐵盡早下車。
 
常規意義上這是多數應屆學生的SAT二戰甚至三戰,也不乏個別10年級學霸打算先拔頭籌,這一切都表明學生的考試規劃愈發提前,培訓機構經驗逐步積累沉淀,美本標化考試生態日趨成熟穩定。
 
在這樣的大氛圍下,勤奮和成績自然會更成正比,努力與出分也是水到渠成的事情,也讓我們更加期待這次考試同學們的表現!一如既往,沃邦以為學生提供最為優質的送考服務為理念,整理最全面的考試資料為習慣,傳遞最快速的考情回顧為目標,又一次派出專業教師團隊趕赴多地親臨考試,希望為大家帶來最新鮮及時的新SAT考試動態~
 
在本次出發之前
我們針對本次出行的
沃邦教育5月SAT香港考團
做了一次專訪
即將隨團踏上考場的學生們
對于這次考試有著什么樣的期待呢?
趕緊來看看吧
↓↓↓
 

考試概述

考試整體呈現出的難度正常偏上一點,其中閱讀難度中等偏上(主要難度在于單篇歷史的理解),語法和數學都不算難。閱讀部分的結構順序上跟去年10月亞太/12月亞太/今年3月亞太保持基本的一致,都是小說+歷史單篇+三篇科學(科學對比的次序校友差異)。相信做過前幾套的學生應該對這個結構有所熟悉和準備。
 
但在評分標準的預估方面仍舊要看大家的表現和CB最后的評定,不過閱讀部分較三月的難度提升會使評分適當放寬,但語法部分的curve可能依舊不樂觀。
 

 各科回憶

 閱讀部分

 
這次考試閱讀整體難度中等偏上,預計評分曲線會比異常嚴厲的今年三月亞太更松(也即會有一定容錯率)。文章次序也延續,在第二篇出現較難的歷史單篇。亞太卷在經歷三次科學對比后,仍然維持科學對比(放在第三篇)。
 
整體來看,整套題考點非常規整,均是老師上課反復強調的常考知識點,比較有難度的是歷史類文章觀點的把握以及部分科學細節。這也提醒平時上課、練習和總結的重要性。題型方面,詞匯、信息目的、邏輯推理、獨立尋證、回應互聯、圖表題等常見題型均有考察。
 
其中,詞匯題共9題,疑似重復考察3題(課上反復強調),大部分語境提示信息都比較明顯。按老師課上所教授的方法,基本能分析清楚。部分選項的詞匯難度偏高,體現了平時詞匯積累的重要性。相信平時在沃邦督學監督下堅持背詞的同學終有了回報。
 
信息目的題在各篇文章均有出現,解題的思路還有選項的設置都符合這類題型的固有規律。難點在于明確信息間的關系以及信息的目的,避免過度解讀信息本身而選到干擾選項。假設題再次出現。
 
沃邦SAT教研組后續將對這套試卷全面深入教研,相關文章會發在沃邦公眾號上,敬請期待。以下是五篇文章的詳細情況:
  
閱讀第 1 篇文章概述
第一篇小說
名稱:Mrs. Manstey’s View 
年代:1891
這篇小說選段開篇介紹了一個人物的日常習慣和性格,Mrs. Mansley, 她平常不太閑著,喜歡看點書,但是不多,真正的愛好是養各種花花草草。看這這些鮮花,她就覺得很滿足,都不屑于和別人交往。一天,她的女房東Mrs. Sampson來了,告訴她隔壁鄰居Mrs. Blacks要裝修房子,會建一堵很高的墻。這個消息讓Mrs. Mansley大驚失色,臉色發白,雖然她命沒有說什么。女房東雖然不滿,但是說沒有任何法律可以阻止這個事情的發生,只能接受。房東走后,Mrs. Mansley看著自己窗外的花草,頓覺人生失去了意義,因為以后那些植物就要被一堵高墻給遮蓋住了。
 
閱讀第 1 篇考題
Q1:詞匯題,考察idle的意思
Q2: focus shift , 問在18行,小說出現了怎樣的內容轉變
Q3: 功能題, 詢問Mrs. Mansley and Mrs. Sampson的對話起到什么作用
Q4: 詞匯題,考察absorbing 的含義
Q5: 細節題,Mrs. Sampson 宣布了哪一個消息
Q6: 推斷題,Mrs. Sampson沒有發現Mrs. Mansley的那個反應
Q7:詢證題,Mrs. Sampson對于鄰居裝修房子是什么態度
Q8: 詢證題,四個證據
Q9: 詢證題,Mrs. Mansley對于鄰居裝修房子的態度
Q10: 詢證題,四個證據
  
閱讀第 2 篇文章概述
羅斯福于1906年發表的演說 the Man with the Muck Rake,以《天路歷程》(The Pilgrim’s Progress)作為引子,呼吁揭發包括政界商界在內的一切犯罪和丑聞,但警告這樣的揭發必須以事實作為依據,不能借此造謠污蔑,否則只會造成更大后果,雖然羅斯福意識到自己這樣的呼吁很容易被人誤解和利用,但他還是依舊堅持作出了這樣的號召。
 
閱讀第 2 篇考題
第一和第二題均為主旨題,第一題的選項均為抽象概括性描述,第二題要求給出羅斯福具體的central claim
第三題問開篇提到天路歷程中的角色the man with the mud rake的用意,經典干擾選項提到了引述內容中的spiritual matter
第四題詞匯題問service,答案work
第五題問重復出現every這個措辭的作用
第六第七為配對尋證,問羅斯福的關鍵觀點揭發丑聞必須注意哪個方面,答案要尊重事實
第八第九依舊為配對尋證,問羅斯福預見到自己的呼吁會被怎樣錯誤運用
第十題為較難定位細節題,問揭發丑聞的人要承擔怎樣的社會責任
第十一題考查最后一段的段落大意
  
閱讀第 3 篇文章概述
科學對比文章,邏輯非常清晰,兩篇文章討論的是否能根據化石的微小結構pigment分布來判斷原始reptile(主要是恐龍)的顏色。
 
第一篇文章開頭引入這個方法,后面用一個實驗來質疑這個方法,主要問題是化石微小結構色素的來源可能是參與化石的細菌。實驗用了雞來模擬,因為雞是恐龍的近親。第一篇文章結尾說現在很難說,需要更多特別是化學數據。
 
第二篇反過來支持說化石的顏色其實能體現原始恐龍顏色,主要不是根據外觀,而是化學成分,有個叫Eu***的化學成分在reptile的皮膚和化石保持不變,最終作者支持化石顏色能體現原始reptile的顏色。
 
閱讀第 3 篇考題
Q1 詞匯 drive 選cause(第二次考)
Q2 為什么用雞來做實驗(近親)。
Q3 對應證據
Q4 詞匯 determine 選establish(第N次考)
Q5 回應,第二篇文章對第一篇研究的態度。
Q6 第二篇主旨(實驗根據,化學成分Eu***)
Q7 兩篇主旨取同(實驗和結果)
Q8 細節取同(都不否認有些microscopic有用)
Q9 關系取同
Q10 獨立取證,第二篇對第一篇研究方法特點features的陳述。
  
閱讀第 4 篇文章概述
第一段先引入sarcasm的定義,用來傳達contradiction to our intentioned meaning。后文轉折講到sarcasm其實可以提高人的創造力。在以往的實驗中,研究人員發現大家都偏向于認為sarcasm是condemning的,而不是literal meaning,諷刺也經常會被誤解,人們也會高估自己對諷刺的理解能力。2015年作者和其他同事研究發現當研究對象能識別出諷刺的時候,deliver和recipient都能更加的creative。
 
閱讀第 4 篇考題
1. 細節題,sarcasm的定義
2. 詞匯題,serious。該詞是和sarcastic形成反義詞,選direct
3. 詞匯題 badly
4. 細節題,2015年的實驗之前的細節內容
5. 單一循證題,下面哪個證據能支持原文所說的實驗中not surprising的部分
6. 7 雙詢題,考的是實驗研究的結果
8. 段落目的題,考最后一段的作用
9和10 為圖表題,比較簡單,分別選B和A
  
閱讀第 5 篇文章概述
文章主要講兔子也像人一樣變得更加城市化了。雖然在西歐很多國家,兔子因為疾病,環境等因素數量急劇下降,但研究人員在德國的city parks, suburb parks, countryside做了很多研究發現兔子的家園越來越多集中在城市區域,而且分布平均,和人口城市化趨勢類似。另外一個驚奇的發現是兔子趨向于以更小的群體為單位居住,可能的原因有兩個,一是城市溫度較高,二是資源豐富。
 
閱讀第 5 篇考題
第一題段落功能題,詢問第一段的寫作目的
第二題詞匯題,regular的意思
第三題細節題,詢問研究意義,問什么要研究兔子窩
第四題獨立詢證題,問哪一個句子可以支持一個觀點,即,研究城市中的兔子窩比研究鄉村的兔子窩容易
第五題 詞匯問artificial 答案synthetic
第六和第七配對尋證 問實驗者收集數據的方式說明了什么,答案兔子洞的外觀可以說明兔子洞的尺寸
第八題問了關于居住地環境溫度和食物的細節
第九第十題均為跟文章無關的圖表題,倒數第二道讀Y軸即可。最后一道urbanization沒有超過一個具體的數。

 語法部分

 
這次語法整體難度中等。綜合來看,語法考點符合官方考查思路,題型和選項設置思路比較常規,與老師上課分析的考點和強調的重難點一致,這充分說明了做題和反思總結錯題的重要性。
 
這次考試基礎語法部分所涉及到的重難點及易錯考點主要有run-on sentence, logical comparison, verb usage之時態和主謂一致, 句中標點之逗號/分號/冒號/破折號/撇號的考查,以及標點符號中相對比較難的一個點即限定修飾和非限定修飾的標點的判斷(which的指代)。這部分的題目如果同學們基礎用法掌握扎實,做題時遵循嚴謹的做題流程(如分析句子結構/看完全句),細心認真點基本不會有問題。
 
語篇修辭這部分相對而言重難點和易錯點主要有主旨題,材料增刪題,邏輯排序題,過渡詞選擇題,過渡句,篇章結尾句以及語境用詞題等。這部分題目需要同學們在做題時大概理解原文內容的基礎上,注意審題并合理定位需要聯系的上下文信息,再充分運用課堂上老師總結的做題方法和規律基本可以勝任。過渡詞選擇題和語境詞匯題一直是我們同學的軟肋,這兩種題型均涉及句義的把握和對選項中過渡詞/詞匯用法的掌握,所以平時多儲備并推敲精確的用法至關重要。這次考試過渡詞難度中等,涉及到的主要有however。詞匯考察難度中等。
  
語法第 1 篇文章概述
文章大意:人們為了打破大家對書籍是靜物的觀念,發明出了movable books,其中可以有一些可移動的插圖等。
 
語法第 1 篇考題
1:段落主旨題,問哪句符合這個段落的大意
2. 考察連接詞while
3. 形式上是一個平行結構,但主要考查哪個選項的內容和前兩個例子屬于同一個類別
4. 主謂一致題,one of 。。。考查動詞是否要加s
5. 句子插入題,問給出的句子(和科技有關)是否能放入段落之中
6. 考查名詞是否要加‘s 以及動詞是否要加s(主謂一致)
7. 標點符號題,涉及到了逗號,破折號,句號
8. 連接詞
9. 標點符號,涉及到了逗號,分號
10. 時態題,主要是判斷文章是現在時和過去時
11. 段落總結題,大致是說現在科技進步了,internet等也能保留這種豐富閱讀的方式
  
語法第 2 篇文章概述
文章大意:討論的是大富翁(monopoly)這個游戲的創始者一開始對于游戲的設想,以及后來經歷的一些游戲設計上的改變。
 
語法第 2 篇考題
1. 考查標點符號,前半句是with連接的結構和一個修飾成分,考查用逗號,句號還是其他符號
2. 詞匯題,考查哪個詞匯最符合上下文意思,有enrichment這個選項
3. 連接詞eventually等哪個最符合兩句話的銜接
4. 句意考查,問哪句話符合段落想表達的意思
5. 段落承接句考查,涉及到最能引出下一段的句子
6. although連接的從句,考查主句部分but是否需要
7. ‘s的考查,名詞是否需要加’s
8. 考查句子的保留刪減,這里符合上下文的內容,可以保留
9. 這道題考查了句子的合并,與此同時還涉及到平行結構的識別,和哪部分作為修飾成分的判斷
10. 標點符號題
11. 文風題,考查四個選項哪個用詞最貼合原文風格
  
語法第 3 篇文章概述
Insulation is Heating up
主要觀點:文章體裁為議論文。隨著節能意識的普及,隔熱裝修材料受到大眾的喜愛。隨之而來的是相關工作機會的增多(包括私人住宅和商業裝修需求)。同時,市場上相關新材料也增多。綜上,該行業將會蓬勃發展。
 
語法第 3 篇考題
1. 標點符號題。先判斷句子成分,考察分號何逗號的區別。
2. 句子題。考察句子成分的并列,注意看前面的名詞。
3. 語言表達題。根據全文感情色彩選擇合適用詞。
4. 表格題。注意根據表格判斷上升和下降趨勢。
5. 表格題。注意根據表格判斷工作種類。
6. 表達用法題。考察連詞的使用,前后的轉折關系。
7. 詞匯題。注意區分各詞表“合適的”之義的區別。
8. 篇章結構題。注意根據上下文判斷邏輯關系和主語。
9. 標點符號題。先判斷句子成分,考察分號何逗號的區別。
10. 篇章結構題。注意根據下文意思選擇,應強調該新材料的特點。
11. 表達用法題。考察句子同位語用法,注意介紹個人身份時逗號的使用。
  
語法第 4 篇文章概述
Nether Wind nor Ice nor Gloom of the Night 
主要觀點:文章體裁為記敘文。主要記載了1934年4月11號的特大颶風情況。因為當時測量工具有限,所以科學家們只能以身犯險,最終成功測得風力新紀錄。現在的工具已經有了很大進步,但是人們依然記住他們的成就。
 
語法第 4 篇考題
1. 標點符號題。先判斷句子成分,考察分號何逗號的區別。
2. 表達用法題。考察代詞的使用,注意單復數的區別。
3. 篇章結構題。注意根據上下文判斷邏輯關系和主語。
4. 句子題。考察非謂語的使用,注意找出句子的邏輯主語。
5. 篇章結構題。注意根據上下文判斷邏輯關系和主語。
6. 語言表達題。考察簡潔性的使用,注意排除啰嗦贅余成分。
7. 句子題。考察句子成分的并列,注意看前面的名詞。
8. 句子題。考察句子成分的并列,注意看前面的名詞。
9. 句子排序題。注意根據前面主語(科學家的名字)選擇。
10. 語言表達題。考察簡潔性的使用,注意排除啰嗦贅余成分。
11. 表達用法題。考察連詞的使用,前后的轉折關系。
 
\
 \

1. 熟悉常用語法概念,夯實語法基礎知識,搭建完善有效的語法體系
2. 做題時定位考點,遵循嚴謹的做題流程(如分析結構和看完全句)
3. 進行錯題的反思和總結(最好能整理錯題本),分析并找到錯誤原因,進而優化做題思路。
注意第三步至關重要,是找出自己問題,優化做題思路,總結規律技巧的過程。
 

\
1. 精讀文章以優化文章的閱讀方式,把握文章脈絡結構和觀點主旨
2. 區分題型并注意審題,精確理解題干要求并合理定位解題所需要的上下文信息
3. 區分選項,深度理解選項要表達的核心語義
4. 同類題型進行類比總結以歸納做題方法和規律
 
\
\
\
·
注意 “職業名稱+人名”中間無標點,所以上述題目分別選A/D/A
·上述題目包含了兩種情況:  1. 零冠詞職業名稱+人名;2. 定冠詞the限定的職業名稱+人名。
·注意這兩種情況在SAT目前考查到的范圍內都不加逗號隔開,即【(the) 職業名稱 +人名】無標點。(例外或其他情況暫不作討論)
 
\
·though的用法在我們的真題中考到了很多次,我們比較熟悉的是其作為連詞的用法,基本等同于although, 連接主從句。 但真題中基本考查的都是其作為副詞時基礎結構的用法和句間邏輯銜接的用法。
·Though作為副詞用時,語義基本等同于however,表達句間的轉折邏輯
·但與however不一樣的是,though作為副詞不能置于句首,常常置于句中作插入語句或者置于句末,故【S,though,VO.】  和【SVO,though.比較常見。
·但從語義理解上還是提至句首進行理解,表達的是前一句的轉折邏輯。

 \
\
 

數學部分

 總體概述
這次數學題目非常規整,整體難度不高,計算量也不大,沒有計算器手算也基本能解決,因為就沒有除不盡的情況。
 
知識點方面,二元一次方程,二元一次方程,linear equation,統計推斷,3M,統計推斷均有出現和考察,而且整體難度不高。
 
有陷進的題也不多,只有一道問二元一次方程兩個解的乘積(product) 。還有一道略難的題是:告知你拋物線parabola的頂點,問你c的可能值,根據頂點的xy值和-a小于0,可以找到答案。
 

附錄 

閱讀第 1 篇文章原文
Mrs. Manstey, in the long hours which she spent at her window, was not idle. She read a little, and knitted numberless stockings; but the view surrounded and shaped her life as the sea does a lonely island. When her rare callers came it was difficult for her to detach herself from the contemplation of the opposite window-washing, or the scrutiny of certain green points in a neighboring flower-bed which might, or might not, turn into hyacinths, while she feigned an interest in her visitor's anecdotes about some unknown grandchild. Mrs. Manstey's real friends were the denizens of the yards, the hyacinths, the magnolia, the green parrot, the maid who fed the cats, the doctor who studied late behind his mustard-colored curtains; and the confidant of her tenderer musings was the church-spire floating in the sunset. 
 
One April day, as she sat in her usual place, with knitting cast aside and eyes fixed on the blue sky mottled with round clouds, a knock at the door announced the entrance of her landlady. Mrs. Manstey did not care for her landlady, but she submitted to her visits with ladylike resignation. To-day, however, it seemed harder than usual to turn from the blue sky and the blossoming magnolia to Mrs. Sampson's unsuggestive face, and Mrs. Manstey was conscious of a distinct effort as she did so. 
 
"The magnolia is out earlier than usual this year, Mrs. Sampson," she remarked, yielding to a rare impulse, for she seldom alluded to the absorbing interest of her life. In the first place it was a topic not likely to appeal to her visitors and, besides, she lacked the power of expression and could not have given utterance to her feelings had she wished to. 
 
"The what, Mrs. Manstey?" inquired the landlady, glancing about the room as if to find there the explanation of Mrs. Manstey's statement. 
"The magnolia in the next yard -- in Mrs. Black's yard," Mrs. Manstey repeated. 
 
"Is it, indeed? I didn't know there was a magnolia there," said Mrs. Sampson, carelessly. Mrs. Manstey looked at her; she did not know that there was a magnolia in the next yard! 
 
     "By the way," Mrs. Sampson continued, "speaking of Mrs. Black reminds me that the work on the extension is to begin next week." 
"The what?" it was Mrs. Manstey's turn to ask. 
 
"The extension," said Mrs. Sampson, nodding her head in the direction of the ignored magnolia. "You knew, of course, that Mrs. Black was going to build an extension to her house? Yes, ma'am. I hear it is to run right back to the end of the yard. How she can afford to build an extension in these hard times I don't see; but she always was crazy about building. She used to keep a boarding-house in Seventeenth Street, and she nearly ruined herself then by sticking out bow-windows and what not; I should have thought that would have cured her of building, but I guess it's a disease, like drink. Anyhow, the work is to begin on Monday." 
 
Mrs. Manstey had grown pale. She always spoke slowly, so the landlady did not heed the long pause which followed. At last Mrs. Manstey said: "Do you know how high the extension will be?" 
     "That's the most absurd part of it. The extension is to be built right up to the roof of the main building; now, did you ever?" 
 
"Mrs. Manstey paused again. "Won't it be a great annoyance to you, Mrs. Sampson?" she asked. 
 
"I should say it would. But there's no help for it; if people have got a mind to build extensions there's no law to prevent 'em, that I'm aware of." Mrs. Manstey, knowing this, was silent. "There is no help for it," Mrs. Sampson repeated, "but if I am a church member, I wouldn't be so sorry if it ruined Eliza Black. Well, good-day, Mrs. Manstey; I'm glad to find you so comfortable." 
 
So comfortable -- so comfortable! Left to herself the old woman turned once more to the window. How lovely the view was that day! The blue sky with its round clouds shed a brightness over everything; the ailanthus had put on a tinge of yellow-green, the hyacinths were budding, the magnolia flowers looked more than ever like rosettes carved in alabaster. Soon the wistaria would bloom, then the horse-chestnut; but not for her. Between her eyes and them a barrier of brick and mortar would swiftly rise; presently even the spire would disappear, and all her radiant world be blotted out.
 
閱讀第 2 篇文章原文
Over a century ago Washington laid the corner stone of the Capitol in what was then little more than a tract of wooded wilderness here beside the Potomac. We now find it necessary to provide by great additional buildings for the business of the government.
This growth in the need for the housing of the government is but a proof and example of the way in which the nation has grown and the sphere of action of the national government has grown. We now administer the affairs of a nation in which the extraordinary growth of population has been outstripped by the growth of wealth in complex interests. The material problems that face us today are not such as they were in Washington's time, but the underlying facts of human nature are the same now as they were then. Under altered external form we war with the same tendencies toward evil that were evident in Washington's time, and are helped by the same tendencies for good. It is about some of these that I wish to say a word today.
In Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck Rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck rake in his hand; who was offered a celestial crown for his muck rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.
In "Pilgrim's Progress" the Man with the Muck Rake is set forth as the example of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of spiritual things. Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing.
Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck rake, speedily becomes, not a help but one of the most potent forces for evil.
There are in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man, whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, business, or social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform or in a book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful.
The liar is no whit better than the thief, and if his mendacity takes the form of slander he may be worse than most thieves. It puts a premium upon knavery untruthfully to attack an honest man, or even with hysterical exaggeration to assail a bad man with untruth.
An epidemic of indiscriminate assault upon character does no good, but very great harm. The soul of every scoundrel is gladdened whenever an honest man is assailed, or even when a scoundrel is untruthfully assailed.
Now, it is easy to twist out of shape what I have just said, easy to affect to misunderstand it, and if it is slurred over in repetition not difficult really to misunderstand it. Some persons are sincerely incapable of understanding that to denounce mud slinging does not mean the endorsement of whitewashing; and both the interested individuals who need whitewashing and those others who practice mud slinging like to encourage such confusion of ideas.
One of the chief counts against those who make indiscriminate assault upon men in business or men in public life is that they invite a reaction which is sure to tell powerfully in favor of the unscrupulous scoundrel who really ought to be attacked, who ought to be exposed, who ought, if possible, to be put in the penitentiary. If Aristides is praised overmuch as just, people get tired of hearing it; and over-censure of the unjust finally and from similar reasons results in their favor.
Any excess is almost sure to invite a reaction; and, unfortunately, the reactions instead of taking the form of punishment of those guilty of the excess, is apt to take the form either of punishment of the unoffending or of giving immunity, and even strength, to offenders. The effort to make financial or political profit out of the destruction of character can only result in public calamity. Gross and reckless assaults on character, whether on the stump or in newspaper, magazine, or book, create a morbid and vicious public sentiment, and at the same time act as a profound deterrent to able men of normal sensitiveness and tend to prevent them from entering the public service at any price.
As an instance in point, I may mention that one serious difficulty encountered in getting the right type of men to dig the Panama canal is the certainty that they will be exposed, both without, and, I am sorry to say, sometimes within, Congress, to utterly reckless assaults on their character and capacity.
At the risk of repetition let me say again that my plea is not for immunity to, but for the most unsparing exposure of, the politician who betrays his trust, of the big business man who makes or spends his fortune in illegitimate or corrupt ways. There should be a resolute effort to hunt every such man out of the position he has disgraced. Expose the crime, and hunt down the criminal; but remember that even in the case of crime, if it is attacked in sensational, lurid, and untruthful fashion, the attack may do more damage to the public mind than the crime itself.
It is because I feel that there should be no rest in the endless war against the forces of evil that I ask the war be conducted with sanity as well as with resolution. The men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck, and to look upward to the celestial crown above them, to the crown of worthy endeavor. There are beautiful things above and round about them; and if they gradually grow to feel that the whole world is nothing but muck, their power of usefulness is gone.
If the whole picture is painted black there remains no hue whereby to single out the rascals for distinction from their fellows. Such painting finally induces a kind of moral color blindness; and people affected by it come to the conclusion that no man is really black, and no man really white, but they are all gray.
In other words, they neither believe in the truth of the attack, nor in the honesty of the man who is attacked; they grow as suspicious of the accusation as of the offense; it becomes well nigh hopeless to stir them either to wrath against wrongdoing or to enthusiasm for what is right; and such a mental attitude in the public gives hope to every knave, and is the despair of honest men. To assail the great and admitted evils of our political and industrial life with such crude and sweeping generalizations as to include decent men in the general condemnation means the searing of the public conscience. There results a general attitude either of cynical belief in and indifference to public corruption or else of a distrustful inability to discriminate between the good and the bad. Either attitude is fraught with untold damage to the country as a whole.
The fool who has not sense to discriminate between what is good and what is bad is well nigh as dangerous as the man who does discriminate and yet chooses the bad. There is nothing more distressing to every good patriot, to every good American, than the hard, scoffing spirit which treats the allegation of dishonesty in a public man as a cause for laughter. Such laughter is worse than the crackling of thorns under a pot, for it denotes not merely the vacant mind, but the heart in which high emotions have been choked before they could grow to fruition. There is any amount of good in the world, and there never was a time when loftier and more disinterested work for the betterment of mankind was being done than now. The forces that tend for evil are great and terrible, but the forces of truth and love and courage and honesty and generosity and sympathy are also stronger than ever before. It is a foolish and timid, no less than a wicked thing, to blink the fact that the forces of evil are strong, but it is even worse to fail to take into account the strength of the forces that tell for good.
Hysterical sensationalism is the poorest weapon wherewith to fight for lasting righteousness. The men who with stern sobriety and truth assail the many evils of our time, whether in the public press, or in magazines, or in books, are the leaders and allies of all engaged in the work for social and political betterment. But if they give good reason for distrust of what they say, if they chill the ardor of those who demand truth as a primary virtue, they thereby betray the good cause and play into the hands of the very men against whom they are nominally at war.
In his Ecclesiastical Polity that fine old Elizabethan divine, Bishop Hooker, wrote:
He that goeth about to persuade a multitude that they are not so well governed as they ought to be shall never want attentive and favorable hearers, because they know the manifold defects whereunto every kind of regimen is subject, but the secret lets and difficulties, which in public proceedings are innumerable and inevitable, they have not ordinarily the judgment to consider.
This truth should be kept constantly in mind by every free people desiring to preserve the sanity and poise indispensable to the permanent success of self-government. Yet, on the other hand, it is vital not to permit this spirit of sanity and self-command to degenerate into mere mental stagnation. Bad though a state of hysterical excitement is, and evil though the results are which come from the violent oscillations such excitement invariably produces, yet a sodden acquiescence in evil is even worse.
At this moment we are passing through a period of great unrest-social, political, and industrial unrest. It is of the utmost importance for our future that this should prove to be not the unrest of mere rebelliousness against life, of mere dissatisfaction with the inevitable inequality of conditions, but the unrest of a resolute and eager ambition to secure the betterment of the individual and the nation.
So far as this movement of agitation throughout the country takes the form of a fierce discontent with evil, of a determination to punish the authors of evil, whether in industry or politics, the feeling is to be heartily welcomed as a sign of healthy life.
If, on the other hand, it turns into a mere crusade of appetite against appetite, of a contest between the brutal greed of the "have nots" and the brutal greed of the "haves," then it has no significance for good, but only for evil. If it seeks to establish a line of cleavage, not along the line which divides good men from bad, but along that other line, running at right angles thereto, which divides those who are well off from those who are less well off, then it will be fraught with immeasurable harm to the body politic.
We can no more and no less afford to condone evil in the man of capital than evil in the man of no capital. The wealthy man who exults because there is a failure of justice in the effort to bring some trust magnate to account for his misdeeds is as bad as, and no worse than, the so-called labor leader who clamorously strives to excite a foul class feeling on behalf of some other labor leader who is implicated in murder. One attitude is as bad as the other, and no worse; in each case the accused is entitled to exact justice; and in neither case is there need of action by others which can be construed into an expression of sympathy for crime.
It is a prime necessity that if the present unrest is to result in permanent good the emotion shall be translated into action, and that the action shall be marked by honesty, sanity, and self-restraint. There is mighty little good in a mere spasm of reform. The reform that counts is that which comes through steady, continuous growth; violent emotionalism leads to exhaustion.
It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well won and fortunes ill won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law honesty. Of course, no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them.
As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual-a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits. Again, the national government must in some form exercise supervision over corporations engaged in interstate business-and all large corporations engaged in interstate business-whether by license or otherwise, so as to permit us to deal with the far reaching evils of overcapitalization.
This year we are making a beginning in the direction of serious effort to settle some of these economic problems by the railway rate legislation. Such legislation, if so framed, as I am sure it will be, as to secure definite and tangible results, will amount to something of itself; and it will amount to a great deal more in so far as it is taken as a first step in the direction of a policy of superintendence and control over corporate wealth engaged in interstate commerce; this superintendence and control not to be exercised in a spirit of malevolence toward the men who have created the wealth, but with the firm purpose both to do justice to them and to see that they in their turn do justice to the public at large.
The first requisite in the public servants who are to deal in this shape with corporations, whether as legislators or as executives, is honesty. This honesty can be no respecter of persons. There can be no such thing as unilateral honesty. The danger is not really from corrupt corporations; it springs from the corruption itself, whether exercised for or against corporations.
The eighth commandment reads, "Thou shalt not steal." It does not read, "Thou shalt not steal from the rich man." It does not read, "Thou shalt not steal from the poor man." It reads simply and plainly, "Thou shalt not steal."
No good whatever will come from that warped and mock morality which denounces the misdeeds of men of wealth and forgets the misdeeds practiced at their expense; which denounces bribery, but blinds itself to blackmail; which foams with rage if a corporation secures favors by improper methods, and merely leers with hideous mirth if the corporation is itself wronged.
The only public servant who can be trusted honestly to protect the rights of the public against the misdeeds of a corporation is that public man who will just as surely protect the corporation itself from wrongful aggression.
If a public man is willing to yield to popular clamor and do wrong to the men of wealth or to rich corporations, it may be set down as certain that if the opportunity comes he will secretly and furtively do wrong to the public in the interest of a corporation.
But in addition to honesty, we need sanity. No honesty will make a public man useful if that man is timid or foolish, if he is a hot-headed zealot or an impracticable visionary. As we strive for reform we find that it is not at all merely the case of a long uphill pull. On the contrary, there is almost as much of breeching work as of collar work. To depend only on traces means that there will soon be a runaway and an upset.
The men of wealth who today are trying to prevent the regulation and control of their business in the interest of the public by the proper government authorities will not succeed, in my judgment, in checking the progress of the movement. But if they did succeed they would find that they had sown the wind and would surely reap the whirlwind, for they would ultimately provoke the violent excesses which accompany a reform coming by convulsion instead of by steady and natural growth.
On the other hand, the wild preachers of unrest and discontent, the wild agitators against the entire existing order, the men who act crookedly, whether because of sinister design or from mere puzzle headedness, the men who preach destruction without proposing any substitute for what they intend to destroy, or who propose a substitute which would be far worse than the existing evils-all these men are the most dangerous opponents of real reform. If they get their way they will lead the people into a deeper pit than any into which they could fall under the present system. If they fail to get their way they will still do incalculable harm by provoking the kind of reaction which in its revolt against the senseless evil of their teaching would enthrone more securely than ever the evils which their misguided followers believe they are attacking.
More important than aught else is the development of the broadest sympathy of man for man. The welfare of the wage worker, the welfare of the tiller of the soil, upon these depend the welfare of the entire country; their good is not to be sought in pulling down others; but their good must be the prime object of all our statesmanship.
Materially we must strive to secure a broader economic opportunity for all men, so that each shall have a better chance to show the stuff of which he is made. Spiritually and ethically we must strive to bring about clean living and right thinking. We appreciate that the things of the body are important; but we appreciate also that the things of the soul are immeasurably more important.
The foundation stone of national life is, and ever must be, the high individual character of the average citizen.
  
閱讀第 3 篇文章原文
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence,” that connoisseur of witticisms, Oscar Wilde, is said to have remarked. But not everyone shares his view. Communication experts and marriage counselors alike typically advise us to stay away from this particular form of expression. The reason is simple: sarcasm carries the poisonous sting of contempt, which can hurt others and harm relationships. By its very nature, it invites conflict.
Sarcasm involves constructing or exposing contradictions between intended meanings. It is the most common form of verbal irony—that is, allowing people to say exactly what they do not mean. Often we use it to humorously convey disapproval or scorn. “Pat, don't work so hard!” a boss might say, for example, on catching his assistant surfing the Web.
And yet behavioral scientists Li Huang of INSEAD business school, Adam D. Galinsky of Columbia University and I have found that sarcasm may also offer an unexpected psychological payoff: greater creativity. The use of sarcasm, in fact, appears to promote creativity for those on both the giving and receiving end of the exchange. Instead of avoiding snarky remarks completely, our research suggests that, used with care and in moderation, clever quips can trigger creative sparks.
Early research into how people interpret sarcastic statements revealed, as one might expect, that most perceive such comments as critical compared with more direct utterances. In one study, published in 1997, 32 participants read scenarios in which, for instance, one person did something that could be viewed negatively, such as smoking, and a second person commented on the behavior to the first person, either literally (“I see you don't have a healthy concern for your lungs”) or sarcastically (“I see you have a healthy concern for your lungs”). Consistently, participants rated sarcasm to be more condemning than literal statements.
In 2000 University of Western Ontario researchers encouraged 66 students to read a scenario while imagining the perspective of a certain person in the story, such as the viewpoint of someone making a critical comment or the person receiving that comment. Although there was some disagreement on how these comments might affect the relationship between a speaker and listener, perspective taking did not alter anyone's understanding of the speaker's intentions, such as mockery or a desire to provoke anger.
And sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, particularly when it is communicated electronically, according to a 2005 study by Jason Parker and Zhi-Wen Ng, both then psychologists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and their colleagues. They gave 30 pairs of university students a list of statements, half of which were sarcastic and half serious. Some students relayed messages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who received the voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percent of the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56 percent of the time, hardly better than chance.
The e-mailers had anticipated that 78 percent of the participants would pick up on the sarcasm inherent in their messages. That is, they badly overestimated their ability to communicate the tenor of these statements via e-mail. And the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were even more overconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of the e-mail messages about 90 percent of the time. They were much better at gauging their ability to interpret voice messages.
In 2015 my colleagues and I discovered an upside to this otherwise negative picture of sarcasm. In one study, we asked 56 participants to choose a script that was sarcastic, sincere or neutral and then engage in simulated conversation with another subject, who was unaware of the script.
Immediately after our participants enacted the dialogue, we presented them with tasks testing their creativity. For instance, they had to think of a word that was logically linked to a set of three provided words (for example, “manners,” “round” and “tennis” linked to “table”). We also presented them with a short questionnaire about their perceived sense of conflict during the conversation.
Not surprisingly, the participants exposed to sarcasm reported more interpersonal conflict than those in other groups. More interestingly, those pairs who had engaged in a sarcastic conversation fared better on the creativity tasks. This effect emerged for both the deliverer and recipient in the simulated conversation but only when the recipient had picked up on the sarcasm in the script.
Why might verbal irony enhance creativity? Sarcasm's challenge is that the message sounds serious but should not be taken literally. One way to overcome this is through tone—as when exaggerated speech indicates the facetiousness of a message. We need to think outside the box to generate and decipher ironic comments. That means sarcasm may lead to clearer, more creative thinking.
Abstract thinking also helps. In a variant of the previous experiment, we asked 114 students to take on a similar set of roles and tasks (either to listen to or to make sarcastic comments, then take on a creative challenge). But this time we also assessed the students' thinking through a test in which they had to associate a word with either an abstract or concrete action (for example, “voting” could pair with the concrete “marking a ballot” or the abstract “influencing the outcome of an election”). We found that generating or deciphering sarcastic statements occurred more readily when people were thinking abstractly, a state that also promotes creative thinking.
None of our findings negates the fact that sarcasm can damage relationships. So how do we harness its creative benefits without stirring up conflict? It comes down to trust. Our 2015 studies also showed that, given the same tone and content, sarcasm expressed toward or received from someone we trust is less provocative than sarcasm from someone we distrust. Of course, if we were to vary the tone and content, it would make a difference, too. Even trust may not be enough to protect a friendship from an extremely harsh tone and cutting content.
Given the risks, your best bet is to keep conversational zingers limited to those you know well, lest you cause offense. But on occasions when you do enjoy such repartee, you may also boost your creative thinking. To borrow another quote from Wilde, “It is the critical spirit that creates.”
Editor's Note: This article was adapted from a post in the Mind Matters series.
Each week in Mind Matters, researchers explain their disciplines’ most notable recent findings. Mind Matters is edited by Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine
 
閱讀第 4 篇文章原文
Sarcasm involves constructing or exposing contradictions between intended meanings. It is the most common form of verbal irony—that is, allowing people to say exactly what they do not mean. Often we use it to humorously convey disapproval or scorn. “Pat, don't work so hard!” a boss might say, for example, on catching his assistant surfing the Web.
And yet behavioral scientists Li Huang of INSEAD business school, Adam D. Galinsky of Columbia University and I have found that sarcasm may also offer an unexpected psychological payoff: greater creativity. The use of sarcasm, in fact, appears to promote creativity for those on both the giving and receiving end of the exchange. Instead of avoiding snarky remarks completely, our research suggests that, used with care and in moderation, clever quips can trigger creative sparks.
Early research into how people interpret sarcastic statements revealed, as one might expect, that most perceive such comments as critical compared with more direct utterances. In one study, published in 1997, 32 participants read scenarios in which, for instance, one person did something that could be viewed negatively, such as smoking, and a second person commented on the behavior to the first person, either literally (“I see you don't have a healthy concern for your lungs”) or sarcastically (“I see you have a healthy concern for your lungs”). Consistently, participants rated sarcasm to be more condemning than literal statements.
In 2000 University of Western Ontario researchers encouraged 66 students to read a scenario while imagining the perspective of a certain person in the story, such as the viewpoint of someone making a critical comment or the person receiving that comment. Although there was some disagreement on how these comments might affect the relationship between a speaker and listener, perspective taking did not alter anyone's understanding of the speaker's intentions, such as mockery or a desire to provoke anger.
And sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, particularly when it is communicated electronically, according to a 2005 study by Jason Parker and Zhi-Wen Ng, both then psychologists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and their colleagues. They gave 30 pairs of university students a list of statements, half of which were sarcastic and half serious. Some students relayed messages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who received the voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percent of the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56 percent of the time, hardly better than chance.
The e-mailers had anticipated that 78 percent of the participants would pick up on the sarcasm inherent in their messages. That is, they badly overestimated their ability to communicate the tenor of these statements via e-mail. And the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were even more overconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of the e-mail messages about 90 percent of the time. They were much better at gauging their ability to interpret voice messages.
In 2015 my colleagues and I discovered an upside to this otherwise negative picture of sarcasm. In one study, we asked 56 participants to choose a script that was sarcastic, sincere or neutral and then engage in simulated conversation with another subject, who was unaware of the script.
Immediately after our participants enacted the dialogue, we presented them with tasks testing their creativity. For instance, they had to think of a word that was logically linked to a set of three provided words (for example, “manners,” “round” and “tennis” linked to “table”). We also presented them with a short questionnaire about their perceived sense of conflict during the conversation.
Not surprisingly, the participants exposed to sarcasm reported more interpersonal conflict than those in other groups. More interestingly, those pairs who had engaged in a sarcastic conversation fared better on the creativity tasks. This effect emerged for both the deliverer and recipient in the simulated conversation but only when the recipient had picked up on the sarcasm in the script.
Why might verbal irony enhance creativity? Sarcasm's challenge is that the message sounds serious but should not be taken literally. One way to overcome this is through tone—as when exaggerated speech indicates the facetiousness of a message. We need to think outside the box to generate and decipher ironic comments. That means sarcasm may lead to clearer, more creative thinking.
 

 
閱讀第 5 篇文章原文
Imagine you’re on a particularly boring leg of a road trip and you start counting houses. You pass through long stretches of country without counting anything. When you do see houses, they’re clustered into towns, and may have spacious yards with tire swings. As you approach a city (finally!), rows of houses appear at regular intervals instead of clumping. And in the heart of the city they shrink into little apartments that go by too fast for you to count. European rabbits, it turns out, build their homes in a similar way—and since these animals are disappearing in the countryside, understanding their urban planning strategy matters to humans trying to conserve them.
Hunting, habitat loss, and disease have driven down populations of European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the countrysides of western Europe. Yet rabbit populations in some German cities are, well, hopping. Madlen Ziege, a graduate student at the University of Frankfurt, and her coauthors wanted to know how rabbits are taking advantage of urban areas. They chose the city of Frankfurt, where European rabbits have lived alongside humans since at least 1930.
The researchers scoured nine city parks in Frankfurt for rabbit burrows, along with four more suburban parks and three nearby rural sites. In all, they found 191 burrows. Then they rated each site for its “urbanity,” a measure that included three variables: How many people live within half a kilometer of the burrow site? How many pedestrians, bikers, or dogs pass by at dawn and dusk, when rabbits are most active? And how much of the ground is covered by something artificial, such as pavement or playground turf?
Like census-takers, albeit with a serious language barrier, the researchers tried to count how many rabbits lived in each burrow. For a few dozen burrows, they did this by tagging along with a regular hunting group that flushed the rabbits from their holes with trained ferrets. At other sites, the researchers staked out burrows at dawn and dusk and tallied how many rabbits came and went. They also counted burrow entrances to estimate how big each home was.
As “urbanity” increased—as sites became less rural and more city-like—rabbit burrows became more common. Urban burrows were smaller and simpler, like studio apartments compared to country estates. And while rural burrows were spread out and clumped, like the rural houses on our imaginary road trip, urban burrows were spaced out more evenly.
Ziege writes that the results could easily have been the opposite. Since cities cover up more ground up with pavement and buildings, breaking potential habitat into fragments, city rabbits might end up clustered into big burrows like they do in the countryside. Instead, they’re spread out into small homes.
One reason might be heat. Big groups of rabbits keep their burrows toastier in the winter—but cities are a little warmer to begin with, so living with a lot of warm bodies might not be as important. In the countryside, large burrows with many entrances and escape routes also help protect rabbits from predators. But in the city, there are fewer predators.
Finally, rabbits tend to live in large groups when their resources are limited. In German cities, they may be spreading out because there’s no shortage of food or burrowing space. Country life may mean hunger and hunting ferrets, but for urban rabbits, life is (so far) good.

香港考團花絮

\\\\\\\\\


延伸閱讀

從中美高考的差異來看,為何越來越多人選擇備考SAT?

沃邦獨家|3月亞太SAT考情速遞(附全部真題+詳解)

這10所SAT平均分1500+的院校,有你的Dream school嗎?

熱點關注

校區地址
近期出分情況
快三中奖概率计算公式