有些考生反映10月份SAT難度大于5、6月份考試，這是很可能的，畢竟趕著ED申請，根據(jù)以往經(jīng)驗，每年10月份的考試往往是一年里最難的，考試人數(shù)也是最多的一次。緊接著11月的考試，根據(jù)往年規(guī)律，難度會有所降低，如果這次不太理想，請盡快報名一下11月份的考試(很快就要截止)。同時也提醒2017年申請的同學(xué)，盡量在上半年1月，5月和6月，甚至是8月(明年首次有8月考試)的考試中考出滿意的分?jǐn)?shù)，也可以避免10月份緊張的狀況。此外，特別提醒，如果覺得此次考試不理想，又想取消成績的同學(xué)，請務(wù)必記得在下周三之前，通過傳真、電話的方式取消自己的成績!這是2017美國TOP50大學(xué)新SAT成績要求(本科段)，考生盡可參考!

  2016年10月10日SAT寫作真題

  文章名為“Read, Kids, Read”，選自2014年5月《紐約時報》。作者是Frank Bruni.

  文章主題鮮明，生動而靈活。作者使用了personal anecdote, quotation, authoritative reference, conversational tone等主要寫作手法，以及metaphor, hyperbole等修辭手法。

  學(xué)生感受：文章風(fēng)格比較平實，思路清楚，難度不高。比較容易找到作者的寫作手法。

  2016年10月01日新SAT考試亞太寫作真題--Read, Kids, Read

  As an uncle I’m inconsistent about too many things.

  Birthdays, for example. My nephew Mark had one on Sunday, and I didn’t remember — and send a text — until 10 p.m., by which point he was asleep.

  School productions, too. I saw my niece Bella in “Seussical: The Musical” but missed “The Wiz.” She played Toto, a feat of trans-species transmogrification that not even Meryl, with all of her accents, has pulled off.

  But about books, I’m steady. Relentless. I’m incessantly asking my nephews and nieces what they’re reading and why they’re not reading more. I’m reliably hurling novels at them, and also at friends’ kids. I may well be responsible for 10 percent of all sales of “The Fault in Our Stars,” a teenage love story to be released as a movie next month. Never have I spent money with fewer regrets, because I believe in reading — not just in its power to transport but in its power to transform.

  So I was crestfallen on Monday, when a new report by Common Sense Media came out. It showed that 30 years ago, only 8 percent of 13-year-olds and 9 percent of 17-year-olds said that they “hardly ever” or never read for pleasure. Today, 22 percent of 13-year-olds and 27 percent of 17-year-olds say that. Fewer than 20 percent of 17-year-olds now read for pleasure “almost every day.” Back in 1984, 31 percent did. What a marked and depressing change.

  I know, I know: This sounds like a fogy’s crotchety lament. Or, worse, like self-interest. Professional writers arguing for vigorous reading are dinosaurs begging for a last breath. We’re panhandlers with a better vocabulary.

  But I’m coming at this differently, as someone persuaded that reading does things — to the brain, heart and spirit — that movies, television, video games and the rest of it cannot.

  There’s research on this, and it’s cited in a recent article in The Guardian by Dan Hurley, who wrote that after “three years interviewing psychologists and neuroscientists around the world,” he’d concluded that “reading and intelligence have a relationship so close as to be symbiotic.”

  In terms of smarts and success, is reading causative or merely correlated? Which comes first, “The Hardy Boys” or the hardy mind? That’s difficult to unravel, but several studies have suggested that people who read fiction, reveling in its analysis of character and motivation, are more adept at reading people, too: at sizing up the social whirl around them. They’re more empathetic. God knows we need that.

  Late last year, neuroscientists at Emory University reported enhanced neural activity in people who’d been given a regular course of daily reading, which seemed to jog the brain: to raise its game, if you will.

  Some experts have doubts about that experiment’s methodology, but I’m struck by how its findings track something that my friends and I often discuss. If we spend our last hours or minutes of the night reading rather than watching television, we wake the next morning with thoughts less jumbled, moods less jangled. Reading has bequeathed what meditation promises. It has smoothed and focused us.

  Maybe that’s about the quiet of reading, the pace of it. At Success Academy Charter Schools in New York City, whose students significantly outperform most peers statewide, the youngest kids all learn and play chess, in part because it hones “the ability to focus and concentrate,” said Sean O’Hanlon, who supervises the program. Doesn’t reading do the same?

  Daniel Willingham, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, framed it as a potentially crucial corrective to the rapid metabolism and sensory overload of digital technology. He told me that it can demonstrate to kids that there’s payoff in “doing something taxing, in delayed gratification.” A new book of his, “Raising Kids Who Read,” will be published later this year.

  Before talking with him, I arranged a conference call with David Levithanand Amanda Maciel. Both have written fiction in the young adult genre, whose current robustness is cause to rejoice, and they rightly noted that the intensity of the connection that a person feels to a favorite novel, with which he or she spends eight or 10 or 20 hours, is unlike any response to a movie.

  That observation brought to mind a moment in “The Fault in Our Stars” when one of the protagonists says that sometimes, “You read a book and it fills you with this weird evangelical zeal, and you become convinced that the shattered world will never be put back together unless and until all living humans read the book.”

  Books are personal, passionate. They stir emotions and spark thoughts in a manner all their own, and I’m convinced that the shattered world has less hope for repair if reading becomes an ever smaller part of it.

  上海新航道 提供專業(yè)的雅思培訓(xùn) 、托福培訓(xùn) 、SAT培訓(xùn) 等英語培訓(xùn)，幫助廣大學(xué)子“用英語點亮人生”。

請加COCO老師（微信號：shnc_2018）

百人留學(xué)備考群，名師答疑，助教監(jiān)督，分享最新資訊，領(lǐng)取獨家資料。掃碼免費加入