過去這個週末學生考了 2016 年 4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
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。
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。
- 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
所有 2016 年 4月 (北美) SAT 考試閱讀文章
This passage is adapted from Jane Austen’s Persuasion, originally published in 1818.
Sir Walter Elliot, of Kellynch Hall, in Somersetshire, was a man who, for his own amusement, never took up any book but the Baronetage; there he found occupation for an idle hour, and consolation in a distressed one; there his faculties were roused into admiration and respect, by contemplating the limited remnant of the earliest patents; there any unwelcome sensations, arising from domestic affairs changed naturally into pity and contempt as he turned over the almost endless creations of the last century; and there, if every other leaf were powerless, he could read his own history with an interest which never failed. This was the page at which the favorite volume always opened:
ELLIOT OF KELLYNCH HALL.
“Walter Elliot, born March 1, 1760, married, July 15, 1784, Elizabeth, daughter of James Stevenson, Esq. of South Park, in the county of Gloucester, by which lady (who died 1800) he has issue Elizabeth, born June 1, 1785; Anne, born August 9, 1787; a still-born son, November 5, 1789; Mary, born November 20, 1791.”
Precisely such had the paragraph originally stood from the printer’s hands; but Sir Walter had improved it by adding, for the information of himself and his family, these words, aer the date of Mary’s birth— “Married, December 16, 1810, Charles, son and heir of Charles Musgrove, Esq. of Uppercross, in the county of Somerset,” and by inserting most accurately the day of the month on which he had lost his wife.
Then followed the history and rise of the ancient and respectable family, in the usual terms; how it had been first settled in Cheshire; how mentioned in Dugdale, serving the once of high sheriff, representing a borough in three successive parliaments, exertions of loyalty, and dignity of baronet, in the first year of Charles II, with all the Marys and Elizabeths they had married; forming altogether two handsome duodecimo pages, and concluding with the arms and motto:
“Principal seat, Kellynch Hall, in the county of Somerset,” and Sir Walter’s handwriting again in this finale:
—“Heir presumptive, William Walter Elliot, Esq., great grandson of the second Sir Walter.”
Vanity was the beginning and the end of Sir Walter Elliot’s character; vanity of person and of situation. He had been remarkably handsome in his youth; and, at fifty-four, was still a very fine man. Few women could think more of their personal appearance than he did, nor could the valet of any new made lord be more delighted with the place he held in society. He considered the blessing of beauty as inferior only to the blessing of a baronetcy; and the Sir Walter Elliot, who united these gifts, was the constant object of his warmest respect and devotion.
His good looks and his rank had one fair claim on his attachment; since to them he must have owed a wife of very superior character to anything deserved by his own. Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and amiable; whose judgment and conduct, if they might be pardoned the youthful infatuation which made her Lady Elliot, had never required indulgence afterwards. She had humored, or softened, or concealed his failings, and promoted his real respectability for seventeen years; and though not the very happiest being in the world herself, had found enough in her duties, her friends, and her children, to attach her to life, and make it no matter of indifference to her when she was called on to quit them. Three girls, the two eldest sixteen and fourteen, was an awful legacy for a mother to bequeath, an awful charge rather, to confide to the authority and guidance of a conceited, silly father.
She had, however, one very intimate friend, a sensible, deserving woman, who had been brought, by strong attachment to herself, to settle close by her, in the village of Kellynch; and on her kindness and advice, Lady Elliot mainly relied for the best help and maintenance of the good principles and instruction which she had been anxiously giving her daughters.
This friend, and Sir Walter, did not marry, whatever might have been anticipated on that head by their acquaintance. Thirteen years had passed away since Lady Elliot’s death, and they were still near neighbors and intimate friends, and one remained a widower, the other a widow.
The following is an excerpt from Elliott A. Medrich’s Young Adolescents and Discretionary Time Use: The Nature of Life Outside School.
Time use is one way of viewing important commonalties and differences in the experience of growing up.
Studies of time use typically focus on one of two issues: how much time adolescents commit to particular activities; or what adolescents do, often without regard to the amount of time spent on each activity. Both styles of research enhance our understanding of the relationship between what adolescents do with their discretionary time and the circumstances—family background, gender, neighborhood environment—which serve as a backdrop to time use decision making.
Five domains of out-of-school time use are described below, including activities alone or with friends, activities with parents, in-home or out-of-home chores, jobs and responsibilities, organized activities including participation in recreational and cultural programs supervised by adults, and television viewing and use of other media. Patterns of time use across each of the domains are summarized as follows.
Time Alone and with Friends
Young adolescence marks the emergence of peers as crucial actors in time use decision making. In contrast to younger children, time use research with adolescents documents the increasing import of peer relations, and in parallel fashion, increasing divergence in the activity sets of boys and girls. Among boys, there is still an interest in “active” forms of leisure (like sports), while among girls an increasing amount of time is spent socializing, talking and engaging in more passive pursuits.
Activities with Parents and Family
Early adolescents spend little time with their parents and families. Eating and television viewing tend to be the most frequent activities, although girls seem to spend somewhat more time interacting with family members than boys. This seems to reflect changes in parent-child relationships—parents do not determine how young adolescents spend their time as they do with younger children.
Chores, Jobs, Responsibilities and Earned Income
This domain reveals several important characteristics of young adolescence—changing views of the capabilities of boys and girls; reinforcement of role stereotypes; and the desire among young people to earn money and, thereby, gain increased control of their time use options. Boys and girls are typically assigned different kinds of chores at home—boys do things like yard work, while girls are more likely to shop and babysit. These activities also come to characterize the kinds of jobs held among young adolescents employed for the first time (estimates indicate that as many as 20 percent of fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds work regularly for money outside the home). Young adolescents are more interested in jobs for the sake of income rather than for the “skill building” or “character building” aspects of early work experience.
Television and Other Media
Television viewing peaks in early adolescence and begins to decline through the middle school years. Interestingly, it is sometimes the only activity young adolescents do with their parents or siblings. Other media are beginning to play a significant role in their lives. Many young adolescents spend as much as four to six hours a day listening to music (usually radio), and it begins to emerge as a significant backdrop to other activities, to a degree defining a cornerstone of adolescent peer culture.
There is tremendous diversity within the domain of organized activities, with regard to the substance, structure, and management styles of the available services. Programs are provided by both public and non-prot sectors, and most young adolescents participate in at least one group, lesson, class, or club during the course of the school year (studies report that between sixty and eighty percent of young adolescents become involved). Levels of participation in particular activities are different for boys and girls, and for children from different income groups. Factors contributing to participation include: involvement of friends, interest in the activity, and whether or not the program or activity offers some measure of autonomy.
Community facilities, as distinct from organized activities, represent a somewhat different type of time use. Physical access is important to decisions young adolescents make about using facilities like libraries, recreation centers and parks. Since they are still minimally mobile, they need services close to home. Providers must be sensitive to the growing independence of the age group and to differences in needs across and within communities, across gender and across age groups.
The following passage is an excerpt from a speech given by John Stuart Mill to the British House of Commons in April 1868. In it, Mill argues that a proposed ban on capital punishment by that legislative body should not be approved.
. . . Aggravated murder is now practically the only crime which is punished with death by any of our lawful tribunals; and we are even now deliberating whether the extreme penalty should be retained in that solitary case.
When there has been brought home to any one, by conclusive evidence, the greatest crime known to the law; and when the attendant circumstances suggest no palliation of the guilt, no hope that the culprit may even yet not be unworthy to live among mankind, nothing to make it probable that the crime was an exception to his general character rather than a consequence of it, then I confess it appears to me that to deprive the criminal of the life of which he has proved himself to be unworthy—solemnly to blot him out from the fellowship of mankind and from the catalogue of the living—is the most appropriate, as it is certainly the most impressive, mode in which society can attach to so great a crime the penal consequences which for the security of life it is indispensable to annex to it.
I defend this penalty, when confined to atrocious cases, on the very ground on which it is commonly attacked—on that of humanity to the criminal; as beyond comparison the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime. If, in our horror of inflicting death, we endeavor to devise some punishment for the living criminal which shall act on the human mind with a deterrent force at all comparable to that of death, we are driven to inflictions less severe indeed in appearance, and therefore less efficacious, but far more cruel in reality. Few, I think, would venture to propose, as a punishment for aggravated murder, less than imprisonment with hard labor for life; that is the fate to which a murderer would be consigned by the mercy which shrinks from putting him to death.
But has it been sufficiently considered what sort of a mercy this is, and what kind of life it leaves to him? If, indeed, the punishment is not really inflicted—if it becomes the sham which a few years ago such punishments were rapidly becoming—then, indeed, its adoption would be almost tantamount to giving up the attempt to repress murder altogether. But if it really is what it professes to be, and if it is realized in all its rigor by the popular imagination, as it very probably would not be, but as it must be if it is to be efficacious, it will be so shocking that when the memory of the crime is no longer fresh, there will be almost insuperable difficulty in executing it. What comparison can there really be, in point of severity, between consigning a man to the short pang of a rapid death, and immuring him in a living tomb, there to linger out what may be a long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil, without any of its alleviations or rewards—debarred from all pleasant sights and sounds, and cut off from all earthly hope, except a slight mitigation of bodily restraint, or a small improvement of diet? Yet even such a lot as this, because there is no one moment at which the suffering is of terrifying intensity, and, above all, because it does not contain the element, so imposing to the imagination, of the unknown, is universally reputed a milder punishment than death—stands in all codes as a mitigation of the capital penalty, and is thankfully accepted as such.
The following article examines the relationship between brain size and socialization among wasps.
A solitary wasp—the kind that lives and forages for food alone—has a fairly small brain. Type out a lowercase letter in 10-point text and you’ll get an idea of its size.
But tiny as that brain is, its social cousins, living together in honeycombed nests, have even smaller ones. And that size difference might provide some key information about the difference between insect societies and vertebrate societies.
Biologists have studied the societies of vertebrates—from flocks of birds, to schools of fish, to communities of humans—enough to come up with something called the “social brain hypothesis.” Generally, it goes something like this: Social interaction presents challenges that require a lot of brain power, as that interaction requires organisms to navigate complicated territory, including avoiding conflict and building alliances.
Therefore, vertebrates that live in societies have bigger brains. The more complex the organism’s society, the bigger its brain regions for processing complex information will be. Scientists believe the complexity of human societies may be one of the reasons we have such large, developed brains.Sean O’Donnell, a biology professor at Drexel, has spent almost the entirety of his more than 20-year career studying wasps. He says these picnic terrors—actually critical members of the insect world that prey on pest species—represent ideal candidates for seeing whether that hypothesis applies to insects, because they have so much variation.
Some wasps are solitary. Some live in small, primitive groups. Others live in larger, more complex societies. “ere are lots of intermediate stages,” O’Donnell said.When O’Donnell, with support from the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences, looked at the brains in 29 related species of wasps spanning the social spectrum, he found that living in a society did indeed affect the size of their brains. It just made them smaller, instead of bigger.His research uncovered another interesting difference from vertebrates: the complexity of the wasps’ societies seemed to have no significant effect on the size of their brains. The big drop off in size occurred between solitary and social wasps. In contrast, the brains of wasps in simple societies showed no significant size differences between those in complex societies.
“That suggests to me that going from solitary to a small society is the significant transition,” O’Donnell said.
Part of what makes vertebrate societies so brain-intensive is that they usually involve groups of organisms with different agendas that aren’t related to one another—most of the people you know aren’t members of your family.
Insect societies, however, are made up of groups of cooperating close relatives with shared objectives. Wasps might not need the type of brainpower required for social interaction because there’s much less of it in their nests and colonies. The insects cooperate and rely on each other without the type of negotiation that can be required in vertebrate societies.
But what advantage could a smaller, less complex brain oer a species? As O’Donnell puts it, “Brains are expensive.”
Neural tissues require more energy to develop and maintain than almost any other kind, and biologists have found that natural selection will nd the optimal balance between the metabolic costs of developing particular areas of the brain and the benefits yielded.
In some ways, the social wasps may “share” brainpower. Individually, their brains might not stack up to their solitary relatives, but the colony as a whole is “smart.”O’Donnell says the next steps for his work will replicate the wasp research with termites and bees, which also oer a variety of social complexity.“We would expect to see similar patterns,” he said.
Passage 1 is adapted from Randall J. Hunt, “Do Created Wetlands Replace the Wetlands that are Destroyed?” Passage 2 is adapted from T.M. Lee, K.H. Haag, P.A. Metz, and L.A. Sacks, “Comparative Hydrology, Water Quality, and Ecology of Selected Natural and Augmented Freshwater Wetlands in West-Central Florida.”
Wetlands are often considered “kidneys of the landscape” because of their role in filtering the effects of surrounding land use, and have widely recognized functions that include storm/flood water retention, shoreline protection, water-quality improvement, and wildlife habitat. In fact, more than one-third of our endangered species are associated with wetlands even though wetlands comprise less than five percent of the landscape! We have lost vast areas of the pre-settlement wetland acreage—more than 50 percent nationally and more than 95 percent in some states. Increasing population, development, farming, and landowners’ rights have resulted in increasing amounts of our wetland resource being destroyed and have increased the pressure on the wetlands that remain.
In the broadest sense, mitigation is a process that focuses on: 1) avoiding wetland loss, 2) minimizing the effect of wetland loss, and 3) compensating for unavoidable wetland loss. In general usage, however, mitigation has become synonymous with number 3 and now refers to replacing the function and structure of a destroyed wetland by creating, restoring or enhancing a wetland somewhere else. is mitigation of wetland loss has been mandated by federal law, and there have been numerous large and small wetland mitigation projects in every part of the nation.
It is not widely accepted that mitigation projects are successful. Although the current wetland permit programs assume that wetland loss is being ameliorated, no long-term, interdisciplinary research shows unequivocally that a created wetland has fully replaced the lost function resulting from a wetland’s destruction. Secondly, there is a concern that created wetlands do not provide in-kind compensation. That is, many hard-to-create wetland types (such as fens, bogs and sedge meadows) are being replaced with common, easy-to-create wetland types (cattail marsh), or the “quality” of the resulting mitigation wetland is not equal to the wetland that was destroyed. A third concern is that placing mitigation projects in areas distant from the destroyed wetland will result in the wetland functions being replaced in areas away from where they are needed and/or in areas that are not wetland deficient. Finally, there is great interest in mitigation “banks”—large wetland restoration or creation projects that can serve as compensation credit for wetland losses elsewhere in a given region. e people agree that while large intact wetland acreage is desirable, there is some concern that mitigation banking projects will not provide meaningful mitigation of the cumulative effects of widely distributed, small-acreage wetland loss.
Augmentation has maintained some of the functional capacity of the four augmented wetlands located within the well fields during the augmentation period (which began in the early 1980s). Without augmentation, the four augmented wetlands would have been dry during the majority of this period. The historical flooding pattern of W29 Impaired Marsh illustrated the most optimistic flooding regime that could have been expected in the absence of augmentation: 20 percent or less of the total wetland area was inundated for most of the time, and entirely dry conditions prevailed for as much as 80 percent of the time.
In addition, the soil moisture comparisons at the natural and impaired marshes, together with the hydrogeologic sections of the augmented wetlands, indicate that without augmentation, the water table would have been too deep below the wetlands to provide the soil moisture conditions necessary for aquatic algae, wetland plants, and freshwater macroinvertebrates to survive. Wetland plants would likely have been replaced with upland vegetation, as occurred at W29 Impaired Marsh where slash pines became established throughout the marsh during prolonged dry conditions (Haag and others, 2005). Cypress tree mortality would have been widespread, as was evident in W19 Impaired Cypress. Moreover, because both of the impaired wetlands were affected less severely by ground-water withdrawals than the four augmented wetlands prior to their augmentation, even more severe deterioration could have been expected.
2016年 4月 (北美) SAT 考試閱讀題目