2021年3月SAT回顧

2021 3月 School Day SAT (亞洲/國際版) 考題回顧:所有 5 篇閱讀文章!

過去這一週學生考了 2021 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 2021 年 3 月 School Day 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 3 月 (亞洲/國際) SAT 考試閱讀文章

Passage 1

This passage is adapted from James Baldwin, ‘This Morning, This Evening, So Soon” ©1993 by The James Baldwin Estate. Originally published in 1960. 

          “You are full of nightmares,” Harriet tells me.

She is in her dressing gown and has cream all over

her face. She and my older sister, Louisa, are going

out to be girls together. I suppose they have many

things to talk about—they have me to talk about,

certainly—and they do not want my presence. I have

been given a bachelor’s evening. The director of

the film which has brought us such incredible and

troubling riches will be along later to take me out to

dinner.

           I watch her face. I know that it is quite impossible

for her to be as untroubled as she seems. Her

self-control is mainly for my benefit—my benefit,

and Paul’s. Harriet comes from orderly and

progressive Sweden and has reacted against all the

advanced doctrines to which she has been exposed by

becoming steadily and beautifully old-fashioned. We

never fought in front of Paul, not even when he was a

baby. Harriet does not so much believe in protecting

children as she does in helping them to build a

foundation on which they can build and build again,

each time life’s high-flying steel ball knocks down

everything they have built.

          Whenever I become upset, Harriet becomes very

cheerful and composed. I think she began to learn

how to do this over eight years ago, when I returned

from my only visit to America. Now, perhaps, it has 

become something she could not control if she

wished to. This morning, at breakfast, when I yelled

at Paul, she averted Paul’s tears and my own guilt by

looking up and saying, “Your father is cranky this

morning, isn’t he?”

           Paul’s attention was immediately distracted from

his wounds, and the unjust inflicter of those wounds,

to his mother’s laughter. He watched her.

          “It is because he is afraid they will not like his

songs in New York. Your father is an artiste, mon

chop, and they are very mysterious people,les

artistes. Millions of people are waiting for him in

New York, they are begging him to come, and they

will give him a tot of money, but he is afraid they will

not like him. Tell him he is wrong.”

           She succeeded in rekindling Paul’s excitement

about places he has never seen. I was also, at once,

reinvested with all my glamour. I think it is

sometimes extremely difficult for Paul to realize

that the face he sees on record sleeves and in the

newspapers and on the screen is nothing more or

less than the face of his father—who sometimes yells

at him. Of course, since he is only seven—going on

eight, he will be eight years old this winter—he

cannot know that I am baffled, too.

          “Of course, you are wrong, you are silly,” he said

with passion—and caused me to smile. His English

is strongly accented and is not, in fact, as good as

his French, for he speaks French all day at school.

French is really his first language, the first he ever

heard. “You are the greatest singer in France”—

sounding exactly as he must sound when he makes

this pronouncement to his schoolmates—”the

greatest American singer”—this concession was so

gracefully made that it was not a concession at all, it

added inches to my stature, America being only a

glamorous word for Paul. It is the place from which

his father came, and to which he now is going, a

place which very few people have ever seen. But his

aunt is one of them and he looked over at her. “Mme.

Dumont says so, and she says he is a great actor, too.

Louisa nodded, smiling. “And she has seen Les

Fauves Nous Attendent-five times!” This clinched it,

of course. Mme. Dumont is our concierge and she

has known Paul all his life. I suppose he will not

begin to doubt anything she says until he begins to

doubt everything.

          He looked over at me again. “So you are wrong to

be afraid.”

          “I was wrong to yell at you, too. I won’t yell at you

any more today.”

           “All right.” He was very grave.

          Louisa poured more coffee. “He’s going to knock

them dead in New York. You’ll see.”

          “Mais bier sar,” said Paul, doubtfully. He does not

quite know what “knock them dead” means, though

he was sure, from her tone, that she must have been

agreeing with him. He does not quite understand this

aunt, whom he met for the first time two months

ago, when she arrived to spend the summer with us.

Her accent is entirely different from anything he has

ever heard. He does not really understand why, since

she is my sister and his aunt, she should be unable to

speak French.

           Harriet, Louisa, and I looked at each other and

smiled. “Knock them dead,” said Harriet, “means

d’avoir un succes fou. But you will soon pick up all

the American expressions.” She looked at me and

laughed. “So will I.”


Passage 2

This passage is adapted from Ann Gibbons, “A Find in Australia Hints at Very Early Human EXit from Africa.” ©2017 by American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

         The timing of the peopling of Australia has been

contentious for decades. Many archaeologists split

into two camps, favoring settlement either

60,000 years ago or sometime after 50,000 years ago,

depending on whether they trusted the dates from

certain sites. Last year, geneticists analyzing DNA

from living Aborigines joined the fray, but they came

up with a wide range of dates, from 50,000 to

70,000 years ago.

          The Madjedbebe rock shelter, formerly known as

Malakunanja II, has always been central to the issue.

Known for its striking rock art, researchers proposed

in 1989 that the shelter was the oldest human

occupation in Australia, after they dated sediments

containing stone tools to 50,000 to 60,000 years ago

using the then-experimental method of

thermoluminescence. But skeptics suggested that the

1500 tools and other artifacts could have drifted

downward over time in the sandy sediments or that

animals or termites had disrupted the layers

         . University of Queensland archaeologist Chris

Clarkson had long wanted to reexcavate Madjedbebe

to resolve the controversy. Geochronologist Richard

“Bert” Roberts, now at the University of

Wollongong, who did the first dates, agreed to redate

the site with Wollongong geochronologist Zenobia

Jacobs, using optically stimulated luminescence

(OSL) dating, a higher resolution form of

thermoluminescence dating.

         With Aborigine permission, the team reexcavated

the site in 2012 and 2015 with painstaking

stratigraphic controls. They found hundreds of

thousands of new artifacts, including “elaborate”

technologies such as the world’s oldest ground-edge

stone axes, grindstones for pulverizing seeds, and

finely made stone points that may have served as

spear tips. The earliest people at the site also used

“huge quantities of ochre” and are the first humans

shown to have used reflective mica to decorate

themselves or rock walls.

         The team took extensive steps to rule out the

migration of artifacts between layers, for example by

refitting together broken stone tools found in the

same layer. Jacobs dated quartz grains from various

layers with OSL, determining when light last struck 
each grain and thus when it was buried. She dated

28,500 individual grains from 56 samples, checking

to be sure that the dates were in proper order,

growing older from top to bottom layers. Using a

Bayesian statistical technique to narrow the margins

of error, she concluded that the oldest human

occupation was 65,000 years ago, with a range of

about 60,000 to 70,000 with 95% probability. “I think

we nailed it,” she says.

         Other dating experts agree: “I feel really good

about the dates,” says geochronologist Edward

Rhodes, calling the resulting chronology °highly

robust.”

          The authors also suggest the new date of

65,000 years for the peopling of Australia pushes

back the time when modern humans coming out of

Africa mated with archaic species in Asia, such as

Neandertals and Denisovans. Living Aborigines carry

traces of those two species’ DNA, which their

ancestors must have acquired by mixing somewhere

in Asia before they reached Australia.

         But such early mixing with Denisovans and

Neandertals is at odds with genetic evidence from

living Aborigines and nearby Melanesians, says

population geneticist David Reich. Analyses of these

people’s DNA “confidently” suggest that the mixing

happened only 45,000 to 53,000 years ago, Reich

says. “If these (new] dates are correct, they must be

from a human population that was largely replaced

by the people who are the primary ancestors of

today’s Australians and New Guineans,” he says.

         That makes sense to archaeologist Jim O’Connell,

who has favored the later chronology. This is “the

only reliable [early] date,” he says.


Passage 3

This passage is adapted from Patricia S. Churchland, Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality. ©2011 by Princeton University Press. 

          Among male primates, cooperation may be rather

limited in those social organizations where

dominance hierarchies are strong and maintained by

aggression. Cooperation among female primates may

also be sensitive to rank, as it is in baboons. Research

on the question of social tension and its effect on

cooperation has been undertaken by psychologist

Brian Hare.

          Bonobos tend to be more easygoing than

chimpanzees, arguably because their foraging

territory south of the Congo River is much richer in

large fruiting trees than the chimpanzee territories

north of the Congo River. As Hare explains, “Overall,

large patches of fruit and higher levels of high quality

herbs to fall back on when fruit is unavailable reduce

the costs of co-feeding and group living for bonobos

relative to chimpanzees.” With reduced foraging

competition, there is likely to be reduced aggression,

and hence a more relaxed way of life. Being more

relaxed means that bonobos will be tolerant of the

close presence of others during eating. Chimpanzees,

by contrast, have a rather high-stress social

organization with a tight male dominance hierarchy.

Bonobo females within a group bond closely,

especially along kin lines, and although males have a

dominance hierarchy, a coalition of females can gang

up on a male. A female bonobo will take food from a

male, and bite one who resists, a behavior rarely seen

in chimpanzees though also common in ringed

lemurs. Chimps are also less likely than bonobos to

tolerate the close presence of down-rank or up-rank

bystanders during feeding.

          Hare wondered whether easygoing bonobos

might be more successful than the more socially

tense chimpanzees in solving a problem that requires

cooperation of two animals. To test this, Hare and

his team trained the chimps by putting two food

dishes separated by 2.7 meters on a platform in a

cage. To retrieve the food, the two animals had to

simultaneously pull on the attached rope-ends. The

chimps easily learned the task, whereupon the

experiment changed, and only a single dish of food

was placed on the platform, which the chimps could

share if they successfully pulled the platform

forward. What Hare observed was that if a 

chimpanzee could work with a “friend” (roughly, a

chimp of the same rank), cooperation was smooth,

but if he or she was paired with a nonfriend, such as

a more dominant chimp, cooperation failed, even

though both knew what they needed to do to get the

food. In other experiments, a chimp was allowed to

go and get another chimp to help in the one-dish

food-pulling task. Under this condition, chimps

generally picked someone both friendly to them and

known to be skilled at the task.

          How did the bonobos do? Even though the

chimps were given more experience at the task, the

naïve bonobos outperformed them. This was clearly

evident when only one of the food dishes was baited.

and after pulling the platform in, the two bonobos

shared. Chimps were wary of the one-dish situation,

either to avoid interacting with a more dominant

chimp, or because the more dominant chimp could

not suppress entitlement to all the food.

Interestingly, comparable results had been found

earlier for two species of macaques—the strict-

hierarchy rhesus, known to be socially prickly, were

less cooperative than the loose-hierarchy tonkean,

known to be more socially easygoing.

          In analyzing the results, Hare suggests that a

relatively high level of cooperativity in a species may

be enabled by the social system and the

temperamental portfolio that supports it. Both

chimps and bonobos are clever enough to know how

to cooperate, and to understand the value of a

cooperative interaction. But cooperation is much

more constrained by the chimpanzee social system.

As noted, in the wild bonobos live in a richer

resource environment than chimpanzees, which may

have allowed the more easygoing temperament to

flourish. Arguably, the chimps’ higher levels of

aggression and social intolerance during feeding may

in general have served them fairly well in a highly

competitive food environment.


Passage 4

Passage 1 is adapted from the majority opinion by Supreme Court Justice Pierce Butler, delivered in the 1929 case Unit e d States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929). Passage 2 is adapted from a dissenting opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the same case. Hungarian refugee Rosika Schwimmer was denied United State s citizenship for refusing to promise to bear arms in the country’s defense, as required by the oath of allegiance . Her case went to the Supreme Court.

Passage I

          Whatever tends to lessen the willingness of

citizens to discharge their duty to bear arms in the

country’s defense detracts from the strength and

safety of the government. And their opinions and

beliefs as well as their behavior indicating a

disposition to hinder in the performance of that duty

are subjects of inquiry under the statutory provisions

governing naturalization and are of vital importance,

for if all or a large number of citizens oppose such

defense the ‘good order and happiness’ of the United

States cannot long endure. And it is evident that the

views of applicants for naturalization in respect of

such matters may not be disregarded. The influence

of conscientious objectors against the use of military

force in defense of the principles of our government

is apt to be more detrimental than their mere refusal

to bear arms. The fact that, by reason of sex, age or

other cause, they may be unfit to serve does not

lessen their purpose or power to influence others….

         The record shows that respondent strongly desires

to become a citizen. She is a linguist, lecturer, and

writer; she is well educated and accustomed to

discuss governments and civic affairs. Her testimony

should be considered having regard to her interest

and disclosed ability correctly to express herself …

Taken as a whole, it shows that her objection to

military service rests on reasons other than mere

inability because of her sex and age personally to bear

arms. Her expressed willingness to be treated as the

government dealt with conscientious objectors who

refused to take up arms in the recent war indicates

that she deemed herself to belong to that class.

The fact that she is an uncompromising pacifist, with

no sense of nationalism, but only a cosmic sense of

belonging to the human family, justifies belief that 

she may be opposed to the use of military force as

contemplated by our Constitution and laws. And her

testimony clearly suggests that she is disposed to

exert her power to influence others to such

opposition.

Passage II

         The applicant seems to be a woman of superior

character and intelligence, obviously more than

ordinarily desirable as a citizen of the United States.

It is agreed that she is qualified for citizenship except

so far as the views set forth in a statement of facts

may show that the applicant is not attached to the

principles of the Constitution of the United States

and well disposed to the good order and happiness of

the same, and except in so far as the same may show

that she cannot take the oath of allegiance without a

mental reservation.’ The views referred to are an

extreme opinion in favor of pacifism and a statement

that she would not bear arms to defend the

Constitution. So far as the adequacy of her oath is

concerned I hardly can see how that is affected by the

statement, inasmuch as she is a woman over fifty

years of age, and would not be allowed to bear arms

if she wanted to. And as to the opinion the whole

examination of the applicant shows that she …

thoroughly believes in organized government and

prefers that of the United States to any other in the

world. Surely it cannot show lack of attachment to

the principles of the Constitution that she thinks that

it can be improved….

         . . . She is an optimist and states in strong and, I

do not doubt, sincere words her belief that war will

disappear and that the impending destiny of

mankind is to unite in peaceful leagues. I do not

share that optimism nor do I think that a philosophic

view of the world would regard war as absurd. But

most people who have known it regard it with

horror, as a last resort, and even if not yet ready for

cosmopolitan efforts, would welcome any practicable

combinations that would increase the power on the

side of peace. The notion that the applicant’s

optimistic anticipations would make her a worse

citizen is sufficiently answered by her examination,

which seems to me a better argument for her

admission than any that I can offer. Some of her

 answers might excite popular prejudice, but if there

is any principle of the Constitution that more

imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is

the principle of free thought—not free thought for

those who agree with us but freedom for the thought

that we hate.


Passage 5

This passage is adapted from Jonathan B. Losos, Improbable Destinies: Fate, Chance, and the Future of Evolution. ©2017 by Jonathan B. Losos. The Rothamsted Park Grass Experiment is a collection of grass plots established in the nineteenth century to study the effects of fertilizers on plants.

          Botanist Roy Snaydon saw in the Park Grass

Experiment a way to experimentally test the idea that

soil chemistry can drive evolutionary divergence in

plants, even over very short distances and short

periods of time. If this were the case, he reasoned,

then it was possible that the variation seen among the

Park Grass Experiment plots may partly have

resulted from the adaptive divergence of members of

the same species to the varying conditions on the

different plots.

          There was only one problem: the staff at

Rothamsted looked upon the experimental plots—at

that point one hundred years old—as hallowed

ground. Only a few select staff members were

allowed to even walk on the plots to tend them.

Nobody was allowed to collect material or conduct

research on them. The scientist supervising the plots

and the Plots Committee were dubious about

Snaydon’s proposals, but his request came at the

right time. The committee was considering

discontinuing the experiments because they saw

nothing left to learn, so what could be the harm in

letting the professor do a little work on a few plots?

Snaydon was called to appear before the committee

and intensely grilled. Finally, approval was granted,

albeit grudgingly, and they permitted Snaydon to

collect a limited number of seeds.

          To test his idea that plants had diverged among

the plots, Snaydon focused on sweet vernal grass, the

plant found on the plots throughout the

experimental field. He initially selected three plots

that had been fertilized with different chemical mixes

since the initiation of the experiment in 1856.

Because lime had been applied to the southern half of

each plot for half a century, the study involved six

subplots varying markedly in mineral content and

soil acidity. Snaydon’s hypothesis was that over the

past century, the grass populations had diverged

evolutionarily to adapt to the specific conditions they

experienced.

          And diverge they had. Snaydon, quickly joined by

ace graduate student Stuart Davies, found

tremendous variation in the sweet vernal grass from 
one subplot to the next. The total weight (termed

 “yield”) of the grass on some subplots was fifty

percent higher than on others; height varied to a

comparable extent. To test for genetic differences,

they planted the seeds from different plots side by

side. Sweet vernal grass from the different plots

grown under identical conditions in a university

research garden differed in a variety of traits,

including the weight of the flowers, the size of the

leaves, and the grass’s susceptibility to mildew,

demonstrating a genetic basis for differences among

the subplots.

          The existence of evolved genetic differences

among plots did not, in itself, prove that these

changes were adaptive—the changes could represent

the sort of random genetic fluctuations that occur by

chance in small populations. To test the adaptation

hypothesis directly, Snaydon and Davies grew plants

under a variety of different soil conditions. As they

expected, plants grew best on soil with the same

chemical composition as their natal plot. Taking this

approach one step further, they took garden-reared

plants and placed them back out onto the

experimental plots (by this point, the scientific

dividends of the work were so obvious that the Plots

Committee was more liberal in the sort of work it

allowed). Sure enough, plants grew much better on

their home plot than on plots with different soil

chemistry and vegetation characteristics. The

conclusion was clean over the course of a century,

plants had adapted to the conditions they

experienced on their own subplots.


2021年 3月 (亞洲/國際) SAT 考試閱讀題目

Ivy-Way 學生在上課的過程就會做到2021年3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