2021年5月SAT回顧

2021 5月 SAT (亞洲/國際版) 考題回顧:所有 5 篇閱讀文章!

過去這個週末學生考了 2021 年 5 月的 SAT 考試。如果這是你最後一次考 SAT,恭喜你完成了一個艱難的任務!

我們整理了 2021 年 5 月 SAT 考試當中的 5 篇閱讀文章,幫助學生準備未來的考試。


這些閱讀文章可以如何的幫助你?

1. 這些文章可以讓你知道你的英文程度以及準備考試的程度

首先,讀這些文章。你覺得他們讀起來很簡單還是很難?裡面有沒有很多生字,尤其是那些會影響你理解整篇文章的生字?如果有的話,雖然你可能是在美國讀書或讀國際學校、也知道 “如何讀跟寫英文”,但你還沒有足夠的生字基礎讓你 “達到下一個階段” (也就是大學的階段)。查一下這一些字,然後把它們背起來。這些生字不見得會在下一個 SAT 考試中出現,但是透過真正的 SAT 閱讀文章去認識及學習這些生字可以大大的減低考試中出現不會的生字的機率。

2. 這些文章會告訴你平時應該要讀哪些文章幫你準備閱讀考試

在我們的 Ivy-Way Reading Workbook(Ivy-Way 閱讀技巧書)的第一章節裡,我們教學生在閱讀文章之前要先讀文章最上面的開頭介紹。雖然你的 SAT 考試不會剛好考這幾篇文章,但你還是可以透過這些文章找到它們的來源,然後從來源閱讀更多相關的文章。舉例來說,如果你看第二篇文章 “The Problem with Fair Trade Coffee”,你會看到文章是來自 Stanford Social Innovation Review。閱讀更多來自 Stanford Social Innovation Review 的文章會幫助你習慣閱讀這種風格的文章。

3. 這些文章會幫助你發掘閱讀單元的技巧(如果閱讀單元對你來說不是特別簡單的話)

如果你覺得閱讀單元很簡單,或是你在做完之後還有剩幾分鐘可以檢查,那麼這個技巧可能就對你來說沒有特別大的幫助。但是,如果你覺得閱讀很難,或者你常常不夠時間做題,一個很好的技巧是先理解那一種的文章對你來說比較難,然後最後做這一篇文章。SAT 的閱讀文章包含這五種類型:

  • 文學 (Literature):1 篇經典或現代的文學文章(通常來自美國)
  • 歷史 (History):1 篇跟美國獨立/創立相關的文章,或者一篇受到美國獨立 / 創立影響的國際文章(像是美國憲法或者馬丁路德金恩 (Martin Luther King Jr.) 的演說)
  • 人文 (Humanities):1 篇經濟、心理學、社會學、或社會科學的文章
  • 科學 (Sciences):1-2 篇地理、生物、化學、或物理的文章
  • 雙篇文 (Dual-Passages):0-1 篇含有兩篇同主題的文章

舉例來說,假設你覺得跟美國獨立相關的文章是你在做連續的時候覺得最難的種類,那你在考試的時候可以考慮使用的技巧之一是把這篇文章留到最後再做。這樣一來,如果你在考試到最後時間不夠了,你還是可以從其他比較簡單文章中盡量拿分。


所有 2021 年 5 月 (亞洲/國際版) SAT 考試閱讀文章

Passage 1

his passage is adapted from Robertson Davies, What’s Bred in the Bone. ©1985 by Robertson Davies. Frank Cornish is a young boy in Canada during World War I.

        Frank’s life was not at all dark; he was not clever

at school, but he attracted Miss McGladdery’s

attention by the seriousness with which he applied

himself in the weekly half-hour that was given to Art.

Miss McGladdery taught Art, as she taught

everything, and she instructed all three classes at

once in the mysteries of drawing a pyramid and

shading one side of it so that it appeared to have a

third dimension—or as she put it the shaded side

“went back” and the unshaded part “stuck out”. A

pyramid and a circle which shading made into a ball,

and, as the culmination of Art, an apple. Shading was

done by scuffling down one side of the object with

the flat of the pencil’s point. But Frank did not think

that was good enough; he had learned a craft at home

in which shading was done with tiny parallel lines,

achieved with great patience, and even by cross-

hatching.

        “If you take the time to do all that tick-tack-toe on

your apple you won’t be finished by four, and you’ll

have to stay in till it’s done,” said Miss McGladdery.

So he did “stay in” with half a dozen other culprits

who had work to finish before they were released for

the weekend, and when he showed Miss McGladdery

his apple at half past four she admitted reluctantly

that it was “all right”, for she did not want to

encourage the boy to be “fancy” and try to go beyond

what the class demanded and what she herself

knew. Frank could draw, which was something not

required in Art, and Miss McGladdery had come

upon a caricature of herself done in the back of his

arithmetic workbook. Miss McGladdery, who was a

fair-minded woman, except about religion and

politics, and had no vanity, admitted to herself that it

was good, so she said nothing about it. Frank was an

oddity, and, like a true Scot, Miss McGladdery had a

place in her approval for “a chiel o’ pairts”, so long as

he did not go too far.

        Almost every Saturday Frank could escape into a

world of imagination by going to the matinee at the

McRory Opera House, where movies were shown.

He got in for nothing, because the girl at the ticket

office recognized him, and as he pushed his ten-cent

piece across the little counter she winked and quietly

pushed it back again.

        Then inside, and into his favourite seat, which was

on the aisle at the back; he did not crowd into the

front rows, as did the other children. Riches

unfolded. An episode—locally pronounced

“esipode”—of a serial, in which, every week, a noble

cowboy was brought to the point of a horrible death

by remorseless villains who sought to rob him of the

equally noble girl he loved. Of course, it all came out

right at the end of Esipode Twelve, and then another

great adventure was announced for the weeks to

follow. After the serial, a hilarious comedy,

sometimes about the Keystone Komedy Kops, who

were as incapable of dealing with disaster as the girl

in the serial.

        Frank had an eye for the movies that took in more

than the action; he saw backgrounds, landscapes

(many of them painted, if you looked carefully), and

angles; he even saw light. It was to his grandfather,

the Senator, that he owed this extension of his

understanding, for the Senator was an amateur

photographer. His techniques were not sophisticated

in terms of the Great War period when Frank was so

often his companion; he worked with a large

box-camera and a tripod. With this load he trudged

happily around Blairlogie, taking pictures of the

town, and such of its more picturesque citizens as he

could persuade to stand or sit still for the necessary

number of seconds, and he drove out to the lumber

camps from which his growing fortune flowed, and

took pictures of the men at work, or standing by

giant trees lying on their sides. He took pictures in

his mills. He took pictures of young Blairlogie men

who were going off to war, with their rifles and kit,

and gave copies to their families. The Senator never

thought of himself as an artist, but he had an eye for

a picture and he was an enthusiastic pursuer of all the

many sorts of light the Canadian seasons afford. He

talked to Frank about it as if the boy were of his own

age. His senatorial and grandpaternal aloofness quite

disappeared on these expeditions in search of what

he called “sun-pictures”.

        “It’s all a question of the light, Frank,” he said

repeatedly; “the light does it all.” And he explained

that all that painstaking shading in Art was related to

light—something which certainly had never occurred

to Miss McGladdery.


Passage 2

Passage 1 is adapted from a speech delivered by Paul Robeson, “For Freedom and Peace.” ©1978 by Brunner/Mazel, Inc. Originally published in 1949. Passage 2 is adapted from a speech delivered in 1949 by Jackie Robinson, “Testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee.” Robeson, an actor and singer, discusses remarks he made at a peace conference in Paris during a time of high tension between the United States and the communist Soviet Union, also called Russia. Robinson, a prominent athlete, was called before the House of Representatives to respond to Robeson’s remarks.

Passage I

        . . . I love [the] Soviet people more than any other

nation, because of their suffering and sacrifices for

us, the Negro people, the progressive people, the

people of the future in this world.

        At the Paris Peace Conference I said it was

unthinkable that the Negro people of America or

elsewhere in the world could be drawn into war with

the Soviet Union. I repeat it with hundred-fold

emphasis. THEY WILL NOT. . . .

        I am born and bred in this America of ours. I

want to love it. I love a part of it. But it’s up to the

rest of America when I shall love it with the same

intensity that I love the Negro people from whom I

spring,—in the way that I love progressives in the

Caribbean, the black and Indian peoples of South

and Central America, the peoples of China and

Southeast Asia, yes suffering people the world

over,—and in the way that I deeply and intensely

love the Soviet Union. That burden of proof rests

upon America.

        Now these peoples of the Soviet Union, of the new

Eastern Democracies, of progressive Western

Europe, and the representatives of the Chinese

people whom I met in Prague and Moscow, were in

great part Communists. They were the first to die for

our freedom and for the freedom of all mankind. So

I’m not afraid of Communists; no, far from that. I

will defend them as they defended us, the Negro

people. . . .

       But to fulfill our responsibilities as Americans, we

must unite, especially we Negro people. We must

know our strength. We are the decisive force. . . .

That’s why they fear us. And if we unite in all our

might, this world can fast be changed. Let us create

that unity now. And this important, historic role of

the Negro people our white allies here must fully

comprehend. This means increasing understanding

of the Negro, his tremendous struggle, his great

contributions, his potential for leadership at all levels

in the common task of liberation. It means courage

to stand by our side whatever the consequences, as

we the Negro people fulfill our historic duty in

Freedom’s struggle.

Passage II

      I’ve been asked to express my views on Paul

Robeson’s statement in Paris to the effect that

American Negroes would refuse to fight in any war

against Russia because we love Russia so much. I

haven’t any comment to make on that statement

except that if Mr. Robeson actually made it, it sounds

very silly to me. But he has a right to his personal

views, and if he wants to sound silly when he

expresses them in public, that’s his business and not

mine. He’s still a famous ex-athlete and a great singer

and actor.

       I understand that there are some few Negroes who

are members of the Communist Party, and in the

event of war with Russia they’d probably act just as

any other Communist would. So would members of

other minority and majority groups. There are some

colored pacifists, and they’d act just like pacifists of

any color. And most Negroes—and Italians and Irish

and Jews and Swedes and Slavs and other

Americans—would act just as all these groups did in

the last war. They’d do their best to keep their

country out of war; if unsuccessful, they’d do their

best to help their country win the war—against

Russia or any other enemy that threatened us.

       This isn’t said as any defense of the Negro’s

loyalty, because any loyalty that needs defense can’t

amount to much in the long run. And no one has

ever questioned my race’s loyalty except a few people

who don’t amount to very much.

       What I’m trying to get across is that the American

public is off on the wrong foot when it begins to

think of radicalism in terms of any special minority

group. It is thinking of this sort that gets people

scared because one Negro, speaking to a Communist

group in Paris, threatens an organized boycott by

15,000,000 members of his race.

       I can’t speak for any 15,000,000 people any more

than any other one person can, but I know that I’ve

got too much invested for my wife and child and

myself in the future of this country, and I and other

Americans of many races and faiths have too much

invested in our country’s welfare, for any of us to

throw it away. . . .

       But that doesn’t mean that we’re going to stop

fighting race discrimination in this country until

we’ve got it licked. It means that we’re going to fight

it all the harder because our stake in the future is so

big.


Passage 3

This passage is adapted from Elizabeth Pennisi, “How Birds Got Their Beaks.” ©2015 by American Association for the Advancement of Science.

        Agile beaks of all shapes and sizes, from the

gulping gape of a pelican to the needle nose of a

hummingbird, have enabled the 10,000 avian species

to thrive from the Arctic to the tropics, build

intricate nests, and eat many different foods.

        Now, researchers may have identified genes that

transformed an ancestral snout into a bird’s bill.

By manipulating the genes’ proteins, they have

seemingly turned back the evolutionary clock,

producing snouts in developing chicken embryos

that resemble those of alligators today. “We’re trying

to explain evolution through developmental studies,

” says Harvard University evolutionary biologist Arhat

Abzhanov, who, with his colleagues, describes the

work in Evolution.

        Their conclusions are at odds with an earlier

study. But even those who disagree with the result

say Abzhanov and Bhart-Anjan Bhullar, now a

post-doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago,

have demonstrated a powerful approach: pinning

down how anatomy changes using fossils, then trying

to recapitulate the changes in the lab by tinkering

with genetic signals. “The value of this paper is their

ability to blend paleontology with evolutionary

developmental biology,” says Richard Schneider at

the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF),

who has linked beak evolution to different genes.

        In ancestral reptiles, a pair of small bones makes

up the tip of the snout. In today’s birds, those

premaxillary bones are long, narrow, and fused,

producing the upper bill. The ancient bird

Archaeopteryx reveals an intermediate step. Its

premaxillary bones were not very expanded, but in

later avian species the bones are progressively more

fused. Other work had also implicated the

premaxillary bones in beak evolution.

        So Bhullar searched for earlier studies of genetic

pathways that control development of these bones.

Work in mice and chickens had implicated two sets

of signals. A gene called Fibroblast growth factor 8

(Fgf8) becomes active in the front part of the face as

it takes shape in 3-day-old chick embryos; later, just

before bones form, a gene called WNT helps drive

the proliferation of cells in the middle of the face,

where it may prompt expansion of the premaxillary

bones. In mammals, lizards, turtles, and alligators, in

contrast, activity of the WNT gene is highest on the

sides of the embryonic face.

        To explore these genes’ role, Bhullar and

Abzhanov treated bird embryos with inhibitors of

the WNT and Fgf8 proteins. When the two signals

were curbed, the premaxillary bones became round

and never fused, as in birds’ dinosaur relatives,

instead of growing long and pointy.

        To the pair’s surprise, a palatal bone, which makes

up the roof of the mouth, also changed dramatically.

In many vertebrates, this bone is flat and fused to

surrounding bones. But in birds, it’s reduced and

disconnected, which frees the top part of the bill to

move upward, expanding birds’ gape. In the treated

chick embryos, the palate looked more like it does in

other vertebrates: flat and seemingly reconnected to

jaw bones. The studies suggest that Fgf8 and WNT

signaling changes allowed skulls of ancient birds “to

evolve in a whole new direction” and form a beak,

Abzhanov says.

        Not everyone agrees. In 2014, UCSF’s Nathan

Young and Ralph Marcucio, working with Schneider,

carried out extensive skull measurements on a variety

of embryonic vertebrates and determined the point

during development at which the bird face begins to

diverge from those of other vertebrates. The work

and later experiments supported a 2009 idea

proposed by Marcucio that the activity of another

gene, SHH (for sonic hedgehog), was critical for

forming the beak. Unlike Fgf8, he says, it’s active in

the right place and right time in bird embryos.

        Marcucio, a developmental biologist, also worries

that the changes in facial structure observed by the

Harvard team may stem from unintended cell death

caused by the inhibitors they used. “Adding the fossil

record to this work is really an important step, but I

think they are just looking at the wrong pathway,” he

says. Abzhanov and Bhullar counter that Fgf8 and

SHH are often coexpressed and may work together.


Passage 4

This passage is adapted from Robert Cialdini, Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade. ©2016 by Robert Cialdini.

        Suppose you’ve started an online furniture store

that specializes in various types of sofas. Some are

attractive to customers because of their comfort and

others because of their price. Is there anything you

can think to do that would incline visitors to your

website to focus on the feature of comfort and,

consequently, to prefer to make a sofa purchase that

prioritized it over cost?

        You’ve no need to labor long for an answer,

because two marketing professors, Naomi Mandel

and Eric Johnson, have provided one in a set of

studies using just such an online furniture site.

When I interviewed Mandel regarding why she

decided on this particular set of issues to explore, she

said her choice had to do with two big, unresolved

matters within the field of marketing—one relatively

recent and one long-standing. The new topic at the

time was e-commerce. When she began the research

project in the late 1990s, the impact of virtual stores

such as Amazon and eBay was only beginning to be

seen. But how to optimize success within this form of

exchange had not been addressed systematically. So

she and Johnson opted for a virtual store site as the

context for their study.

        The other matter that had piqued Mandel’s

interest is one that has vexed merchandisers forever:

how to avoid losing business to a poorer-quality rival

whose only competitive advantage is lower cost.

That is why Mandel chose to pit higher-quality

furniture lines against less expensive, inferior ones in

her study. “It’s a traditional problem that the

business-savvy students in our marketing courses

raise all the time,” she said. “We always instruct them

not to get caught up in a price war against an inferior

product, because they’ll lose. We tell them to make

quality the battleground instead, because that’s a

fight they’ll most likely win.

        “Fortunately for me,” she continued, “the best of

the students in those classes have never been satisfied

with that general advice. They’d say, ‘Yeah, but how?’

and I never really had a good answer for them, which

gave me a great question to pursue for my research

project.”

        Fortunately for us, after analyzing their results,

Mandel and Johnson were in a position to deliver a

stunningly simple answer to the “Yeah, but how?”

question. In an article, they described how they were

able to draw website visitors’ attention to the goal of

comfort merely by placing fluffy clouds on the

background wallpaper of the site’s landing page. That

maneuver led those visitors to assign elevated levels

of importance to comfort when asked what they were

looking for in a sofa. Those same visitors also became

more likely to search the site for information about

the comfort features of the sofas in stock and, most

notably, to choose a more comfortable (and more

costly) sofa as their preferred purchase.

        To make sure their results were due to the landing

page wallpaper and not to some general human

preference for comfort, Mandel and Johnson

reversed their procedure for other visitors, who saw

wallpaper that pulled their attention to the goal of

economy by depicting pennies instead of clouds.

These visitors assigned greater levels of importance

to price, searched the site primarily for cost

information, and preferred an inexpensive sofa.

Remarkably, despite having their importance ratings,

search behavior, and buying preferences all altered

by the landing page wallpaper, when questioned

afterward, most participants refused to believe that

the depicted clouds or pennies had affected them in

any way.


Passage 5

This passage is adapted from Chris D. Thomas, Inheritors of the Earth: How Nature Is Thriving in an Age of Extinction. ©2017 by Chris D. Thomas.

        California enjoys a Mediterranean-style climate,

with cool and relatively moist winters and dry, hot

summers, so it is not surprising that the European

yellow star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis and its

relative the sulphur star-thistle Centaurea sulphurea

established wild populations there. The yellow

star-thistle, in particular, has become so successful

that it is regarded as a noxious weed—despite the fact

that its spiky golden-yellow flowers supply nectar to

butterflies and bees and it mainly grows on disturbed

ground where native wildflowers are rare. In any

event, there is no getting rid of it now.

         Long established in California, there have been

plenty of generations available for the two plants to

evolve in isolation from their Spanish ancestors—the

sulphur star-thistle was introduced to California

around 1923, allowing the Spanish and Californian

populations to develop in isolation for up to

eighty-six generations. But could they actually have

become that different after such a short period of

time? No one would really have expected this to be

the case, and University of Montana researchers

Daniel Montesinos, Gilberto Santiago and Ray

Callaway were no exceptions—ecologists and

evolutionary biologists have been brought up on the

‘knowledge’ that it takes a very long time for new

species to form. In fact, they were not thinking about

it at all. The main goal of their experiment was to

obtain ‘pure’ seeds of each population and species to

use in the rest of their research. However, just to

amuse himself, Montesinos, who is now at the

Universidade de Coimbra in Portugal, in his own

words ‘playfully decided’ to transfer pollen from

Spanish to Californian plants ‘just to see what

happened’.

        The results were very surprising. Californian

sulphur star-thistles produced 44 per cent fewer

seeds per flower when they were fertilized using

Spanish pollen than when they were supplied with

Californian pollen. Over the period since the plants

were introduced to California, the compatibility of

the Spanish with the Californian sulphur star-thistle

has declined. Isolation in the yellow star-thistle is

even greater, at around 52 per cent reduction in

fertility. However, this is over a larger number of

generations. The yellow star-thistle was first found

growing in California in 1824, but its journey was an

indirect one, via Chile, so the chances are that the

Spanish and Californian yellow star-thistles last

interbred 350 or so generations ago. Nonetheless,

this is still exceptionally fast. The Californian and

Spanish star-thistles seem to be losing the ability to

mate with one another. They are on the path towards

becoming separate species.

        Because closely related species can sometimes

mate with one another and produce hybrid offspring,

the benchmark for Californian plants to be regarded

as different species is not a full 100 per cent

reduction in fertility. Knowing this, Montesinos and

his colleagues decided to find out what the fertility

might be when you cross different wild star-thistle

species with one another. They tried to fertilize

yellow star-thistles with the pollen of sulphur

star-thistles, and also with the pollen of yet another

related species. The answer was a 65–88 per cent

reduction in the number of seeds produced when

crosses were made using pollen from different

species. This suggests that the Californian plants, at

44 per cent and 52 per cent reduction in fertility, are

probably not yet fully-fledged species, but are well on

the way towards it, a mere 86 to 350 years after they

separated from their Spanish ancestors. If they

continue to diverge at the same rate, then they might

well be quite distinct ‘human-created’ species within

a few more centuries.


2021 年 5 月 (亞洲/國際版) SAT 考試閱讀題目

Ivy-Way 學生在上課的過程就會做到 2021 年 5 月以及其他的官方歷年考題。除此之外,我們也有讓學生來我們的教室或在家做模考的服務讓學生評估自己的學習進度並看到成績。如果你想預約時間來我們的教室或在家做模考,請聯繫我們!如果你想購買考題在家做,學生可以在Ivy-Way蝦皮商城Ivy-Way臉書粉專、或 Line (ivyway) 直接購買喔!


Leave a Reply