過去這個週末學生考了 2020 年 3 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！
這裡，我們整理了 2020 年 3 月 SAT 考試當中的 5 篇閱讀文章，幫助學生準備未來的考試。
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 2020 年 3 月 (亞洲/國際) SAT 考試閱讀文章
This passage is from Elizabeth Gaskell, North and South. Originally published in 1854-55. John Thornton would like his mother and his sister Fanny to pay a social visit to his friends, the Hales in Crampton.
Mr. Thornton had had some difficulty in working up his mother to the desired point of civility. She did not often make calls; and when she did, it was in heavy state that she went through her duties. Her son had given her a carriage; but she refused to let him keep horses for it; they were hired
for the solemn occasions, when she paid morning or evening visits. She had had horses for three days, not a fortnight before, and had comfortably ‘killed off’ all her acquaintances, who might now put themselves to trouble and expense in their turn. Yet Crampton was too far off for her to walk; and she had repeatedly questioned her son as to whether his wish that she should call on the Hales was strong enough to bear the expense of cab-hire. She would have been thankful if it had not; for, as she said, ‘she saw no use
in making up friendships and intimacies with all the teachers and masters in Milton; why, he would be wanting her to call on Fanny’s dancing-master’s wife, the next thing!’
‘And so I would, mother, if Mr. Mason and his wife were friend less in a strange place, like the Hales.’
‘Oh! You need not speak so hastily. I am going tomorrow. I only wanted you exactly to understand about it.’
‘If you are going tomorrow, I shall order horses.’
‘Nonsense, John. One would think you were made of money.’
‘Not quite, yet. But about the horses I’m determined. The last time you were out in a cab, you came home with a headache from the jolting.’
‘I never complained of it, I’m sure.’
‘No. My mother is not given to complaints,’ said he, a little proudly. ‘But so much the more I have to watch over you. Now as for Fanny there, a little
hardship would do her good.’
‘She is not made of the same stuff as you are, John. She could not bear it.’ Mrs. Thornton was silent after this; for her last words bore relation to a subject which mortified her. She had an unconscious contempt for a weak character; and Fanny was weak in the very points in which her mother and brother were strong. Mrs. Thornton was not a woman much given to reasoning; her quick judgment and firm resolution served her in good stead of any long arguments and discussions with herself; she felt instinctively that nothing could strengthen Fanny to endure hardships patiently, or face difficulties bravely; and though she winced as she made this acknowledgment to herself about her daughter, it only gave her a kind of pitying tenderness of manner towards her; much of the same description of
demeanour with which mothers are wont to treat their weak and sickly children. A stranger, a careless observer might have considered that Mrs. Thornton’s manner to her children betokened far more love to Fanny than to John. But such a one would have been deeply mistaken. The very daringness with which mother and son spoke out unpalatable truths, the one to the other, showed a reliance on the firm center of each other’s souls, which the uneasy tenderness of Mrs. Thornton’s manner to her daughter, the shame with which she thought to hide the poverty of her child in all the grand qualities which she herself possessed unconsciously, and which she set so high a value upon in others — this shame, I say, betrayed the want of a secure resting-place for her affection. She never called her son by any name but John; ‘love,’ and ‘dear,’ and such like terms, were reserved for Fanny.
Passage 1 is adapted from a speech delivered to the Governing Board of the Pan-American Union in 1933 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Passage 2 is adapted from Carleton Beals, The Coming Struggle for Latin America.© 1938 by Carleton Beals. In his speech, Roosevelt formally announced the Good Neighbor Policy.
In my Inaugural Address I stated that I would “dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and
with a world of neighbors.” Never before has the significance of the words “good neighbor” been so manifest in international relations. Never have the need and benefit of neighborly cooperation in every form of human activity been so evident as they are today. . . .
The essential qualities of a true pan Americanism must be the same as those which constitute a good neighbor, namely, mutual understanding, and,
through such understanding, a sympathetic appreciation of the other’s point of view. . . . In this spirit the people of every Republic on our continent
are coming to a deep understanding of the fact that the Monroe Doctrine,1 of which so much has been written and spoken for more than a century, was and is directed at the maintenance of independence by the peoples of the continent. It was aimed and is aimed against the acquisition in any manner of the control of additional territory in this hemisphere by any non-American power.
Hand in hand with this pan-American doctrine of continental self-defense, the peoples of the American Republics understand more clearly, with the passing years, that the independence of each Republic must recognize the independence of every other Republic. Each one of us must grow by an advancement of civilization and social well-being and not by the acquisition of territory at the expense of any neighbor.
In this spirit of mutual understanding and of cooperation on this continent you and I cannot fail to be disturbed by any armed strife between neighbors. I do not hesitate to say to you, the distinguished members of the Governing Board of the Pan-American Union, that I regard existing conflicts between four of our sister Republics as a backward step. . . .
We all of us have peculiar problems, and, to speak frankly, the interest of our own citizens must, in each instance, come first. But it is equally true that it is of vital importance to every Nation of this Continent that the American Governments, individually, take, without further delay, such action as may be possible to abolish all unnecessary and artificial barriers and restrictions which now hamper the healthy flow of trade between the peoples of the American Republics.
Our good-neighbor policy rests in great part upon certain falsehoods, misconceptions, and non-existent conditions. Some of these are:
- The belief that the Western Hemisphere is a unity, that all countries in it have identical interests, merely because they are in the same part of the world. Does France have the same policy as Germany? They have different policies, in part, precisely because they are neighbors. . . .
- The belief that the Western Hemisphere is a brotherhood of democracies in contrast to the evil dictatorships of Europe. Governments to the south have rarely represented the people less than at present. Some are worse tyrannies than any in Europe, their danger limited merely by their relative weakness in the world scene. . . The complexion of the various governments differs widely. But it is pure [foolishness] to argue that
democracy exists in the Western Hemisphere or even the larger part of it. Few of its governments have the slightest basis in democracy. . . .
- The belief that the Western nations are peaceloving as opposed to the war-thirsty nations of Europe. Recent wars and recent international injustices have shaken the southern continent time and again. . . . Even while Roosevelt was uttering these wrong platitudes . . . Nicaragua and Honduras almost went to war over a postage stamp. Other troubles were brewing and are still brewing along with new ones. Never before have the southern countries put out so much on armaments.
This passage is adapted from Todd M. Freeberg, Jeffery R. Lucas, and Indrikis Krams, “The Complex Call of the Carolina Chickadee.” ©2012 by Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society. Chickadees are a species of parid, small birds that eat insects and seeds. The labels assigned to chick-a-dee notes do not correspond to human musical notation.
Individual parids are often out of sight of flockmates as they move through the environment, so a vocal signaling system that can convey messages
related to predators, food, or group movement seems crucial to obtaining the benefits of group living. Recent studies indicate that variation in Carolina chickadee chick-a-dee calls is associated with these social and environmental contexts.
Most studies of these calls in the context of avian predators have used perched predators or models. Christopher Zachau and Todd Freeberg presented predator and control stimuli that “flew” in the area of
Carolina chickadees visiting feeders. Zachau and Freeberg used wooden models shaped like flying birds and painted to resemble either sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus, a threatening avian predator) or blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata, a nonthreatening avian control). The chickadees’ calls were recorded before and after the release and “flight” of the models down a zipline near the feeders. The calls produced varied with the presence of each model type, but the biggest effect we measured resulted from the flight of any model, irrespective of the species it mimicked. Calls
produced after the model was released contained more A notes compared to calls produced prior to the release of the model. Greater production of
A notes in the calls would seem to represent a message of alarm, as opposed to one of mobbing— 30 behavior that is frequently linked to approaching and harassing predators—or of assembly. Tonal sounds that slowly increase in intensity and that are high frequency (such as the A note) are generally difficult for avian predators, and many other animals, to locate. In contrast, noisy sounds with rapid increases in intensity, like the D note, are easier to locate. Thus, the production of more A notes in these calls when a flying predator is detected in the area seems adaptive, as it could alert flockmates to the predator’s presence but not give away the location of the signaler to the predator.
Carolina chickadees produce more calls, and often more D notes in those calls, when they detect a perched avian predator model than when no model is present. For example, in a 2009 study, Chad Soard and Gary Ritchison of Eastern Kentucky University placed six perched avian-predator models in the habitat of Carolina chickadees. The models, all of which represented hawk and owl species, ranged in size and type from small, agile predators like Eastern screech owls (Megascops asio) and sharp-shinned
hawks to large, relatively slow-moving predators like great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis). The former predators represent real threats to small songbird species, whereas the latter do not. Chickadees produced more D notes in their calls when smaller, more threatening avian predators were present. Later the researchers played back chick-a-dee calls recorded in these different threat contexts to chickadees in their habitat. The authors found that chickadees were more likely to mob the playback speaker—to approach it closely in large numbers—when it was playing calls recorded when a small predator model was present than when the speaker was playing calls recorded when a large predator model was present. This work suggests that easy-to-localize D notes are used more often in calls when those calls might serve a mobbing function—bring flockmates to a particular location to drive a predator away. These findings make it clear that Carolina chickadees vary
the note composition of their chick-a-dee calls in the high arousal contexts of predator detection and mobbing.
This passage is adapted from Thalma Lobel, Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence, ©2014 by Thalma Lobel.
In 2008, at Yale University, a student named Lawrence Williams and his professor John Bargh recruited forty-one students for a psychology study.
One by one, the students were led into a lobby, where they were greeted by a young research assistant who guided them to an elevator that would take them to a laboratory on the fourth floor. As part of the experiment, the assistant had her hands full, carrying a stack of books, a clipboard, and a cup of coffee. While in the elevator, she asked the participant to hold her coffee for a second, so she could write his or her name and other information on her clipboard. This casual request was actually the most important part of the experimental procedure. Half of the participants were handed a hot cup of coffee and the other half an iced coffee. This subtly exposed them to different tactile experiences of temperature. Yet they
had no idea that what they were being asked to do was significant.
When the participants stepped out of the elevator and into the lab, they were met by another experimenter, who sat them down and asked them to
read a description of someone called only Person A, who was characterized as skillful, intelligent, determined, practical, industrious, and cautious. Unbeknownst to the participants, Person A was a fictitious composite character. They were then asked to rate Person A from a list of ten additional traits not included in the written description. Half of the traits were on the “warm-cold” spectrum traits that we might associate with “warm” or “cold” personalities—and were identified by words such as generous or ungenerous, good-natured or irritable, sociable or antisocial, and caring or selfish. The remaining traits were unrelated to the warm-cold
aspect and included descriptions such as talkative or quiet, strong or weak, honest or dishonest.
Behold the power of a warm cup of coffee. Participants who held the hot cup for a few moments in the elevator rated Person A as significantly more
generous, good-natured, and caring than did their iced coffee-holding counterparts. People who held the cold cup were far more likely to see Person A as ungenerous, irritable, and selfish. Yet they all felt pretty much the same about adjectives unrelated to the warm-cold aspect, no matter which coffee the subjects held before they sat down.
Could the insignificant act of holding a warm cup of coffee in an elevator really make you see the people around you as nicer? What was going on here, psychologically speaking?
This finding that physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth was so surprising that many scientists raised their eyebrows and asked if it could be true. Yet temperature influences our reactions to real people just as it affected participants’ initial judgments of anonymous people they only read
In 2009, two Dutch researchers explored whether temperature could affect how close people thought they were to others. As in the coffee experiment, the researchers had participants hold warm or cold beverages. The experimenter asked each participant to hold a beverage for a few minutes while he was pretending to install a questionnaire on the computer.
The experimenter then took the beverages from the participants and asked them to think of a real person they knew and rate how close they were to
that person. Participants who were holding a warm beverage perceived the person in mind as closer emotionally to them than did those who were holding a cold beverage. This is surprising because most of us believe that our most intimate connections are stable on a day-to-day basis—we don’t expect them to be influenced by the temperature of the drink we hold.
Yet our minds do not exist in a vacuum, so our feelings and values can be affected by subtle influences around us. Seemingly irrelevant things that we
process through our bodies and our physical senses do affect our states of mind, mostly without our awareness. The core theory of embodied cognition, an emergent field of psychology, states that there is an indissoluble link between our decision making and our sensory-motor experiences, such as touching a warm or cold object, and our behaviors, judgments, and emotions.
This passage is adapted from Amy Coombs, “Down and Dirty.” ©2012 by The Scientist.
Plant diversity was the foundation upon which the ancient Mayan civilization was built. Growing beans, maize, and squash together created healthier crops and dark, fertile earth, and enabled successive generations to rotate crops through the same plots without depleting the soil.
“I always wondered about the underlying mechanisms,” says Alexandre Jousset, from the Georg August University in Göttingen, Germany. “These agricultural practices weren’t used in Europe, and I always wondered about the comparative outcomes.”
This is why Jousset was captivated with the Jena Experiment— a series of biodiverse grassland plots in Germany that have been continuously maintained since 2002, allowing researchers to study the impacts of species richness and diversity on soil fertility. Thanks to Jena data, we know that plant diversity increases microbial activity, and that beneficial bacteria like Pseudomonas fluorescens fight soil-borne plant diseases.
Yet despite these findings, soil cultivation is still more of an art than a science. Research says little about the best mixtures of plants or the abundance of each species needed to nurture beneficial microbes. The problem is that bacteria are elusive; to compare microbes between two sites, samples must be taken to a lab where species are cultured in growth media. Some soil bacteria don’t grow well in culture, and because two different species can secrete the same defense chemicals, “screening for bacteria says little about their actual contributions to the soil,” says Ellen Latz, who collaborated with Jousset on a study of the Jena plots.
This is why Jousset and Latz turned to genes found in the soil—instead of screening Jena soils for beneficial bacteria, the researchers used genes that
produce anti-fungal compounds as biomarkers. Comparing the disease-fighting genes harbored in the soils beneath diverse plant communities
reflects the microbial makeup fostered by plant group interactions, and focuses on the bacteria that suppress soil pathogens, say Jousset and Latz.
In the first set of experiments, the team collected dirt from 78 Jena plots containing different ratios of legumes, herbs, and grasses. They extracted DNA from the soil samples and used probes to identify two P. fluorescens genes—phlD and prnD, which code for enzymes that regulate the production of the antifungal compounds 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol
(DAPG) and pyrrolnitrin (PRN), respectively.
The results were a surprise: a soil’s genetic profile depended on the relative abundance of herbs, grasses, and other plant groups, and this, in turn, impacted the rate of plant disease. A diverse mix of plants increased the abundance of bacteria producing the antifungal compound DAPG. A blend of herbs and grasses, however, increased the abundance of the PRN gene and presumably its producers. Despite their ability to fix nitrogen, soil-friendly legumes diminished the prevalence of both antifungal genes, a
somewhat counterintuitive finding that suggests a “best mixture” of plants for promoting soil health. “This could be crucial for establishing environmentally friendly plant-protection strategies,” says Latz.
Next, the researchers grew sugar beets from seeds in containers of dirt collected from the Jena grasslands. They first inoculated the soil with the
fungal pathogen Rhizoctonia solani, which plagues a long list of crops, including tomatoes, eggplants, and peppers. After seedlings became established, the scientists compared the rate of disease between containers, which featured differing ratios of the two different disease-fighting genes.
It turns out that a cocktail of both DAPG and PRN provided the best defense against R. solani, although it appears the ratio of the two genes was particularly important to plant health. The disease rate was lowest when the genes for both these compounds were present in similarly high amounts. When the DAPG-producing gene was more abundant, plants became sick. When one gene was only slightly more abundant than the other, disease fighting benefits were reduced but some improvement in plant health was seen.
“Should the mechanism described here prove generally true, there could be more reasons to invest in developing polyculture and diverse planting mixtures in agricultural systems,” says Indiana University soil biologist Jim Bever, who was not involved with the study.
While monoculture has been shown to decrease the relative number of beneficial soil microbes over time, Jousset’s study suggests that some forms of diversity are better than others.