SAT，中文名称“学术能力评估测试”，重要性相当于中国的高考，也是世界各国高中生申请进入美国高校学习，能否被录取以及能否得到奖学金的重要参考。考试词汇量要求13000左右，难度系数：TOEFL＜SAT＜GRE。考试成绩有效期为2年。

SAT阅读 

从大趋势上看，考试题越来越多，词汇与内容，层次和题目都有了重现性，建议想要冲刺高分的同学一定要重视以往的真题。

第一篇

文章讲述小女孩Polly在遇到Abigail女士之后的故事。整体上看文字难度不小，方向性比较明显，如果考生能够灵活运用阅读规律，就可以减小难度。文中还设计一些细节题，不过普遍有答案可找。

第二篇

这篇说明文讲述了想要推行fair trade coffee可能导致的问题。文章讲解了fair trade coffee的动机和产生的问题，论点论据关系清楚，文中虽然有大量经济学概念和举例，但总体难度较低。

第三篇

这是难度Z大的一篇，内容是对于地质考古的探讨。文章针对一块岩石中既有Permian又有Triassic的化石这个现象进行了探讨，先后给出了多个科学家的看法，探讨了Permo-Triassic大灭绝和生物多样性的种种关系。

第四篇

历史题材属于较为简单的女权题材，第一篇为争取投票权而发声，第二篇文章难度稍大，反对女权，点出了女性在道德、特质等方面不适合参与政治的理由，题目的难点是在比较中的细节求同。

第五篇

生物学文章的难点在专业名词和实验设置上，但这一篇在这两个方面都比较友好，段落分的比较清楚。题目定位难度较小，图表也没有设置得较难。

SAT语法 

本次考试语法内容比较简单，四篇文章话题都比较生活化，本身理解难度不大。考察的语法大多是基础语法，只要考生夯实基础并且悉细心准备，就能在考试中取得相当的成绩。

考察的内容涉及句子结构、时态、平行结构、修饰错误等等，各考点考查的思路中规中矩，没有太多的陷阱题。句子结构部分涉及到了冒号的用法，修饰限定非限定，插入语，祈使句，形式宾语，逻辑词词性判断（but/however, and/then）等相关知识点，代词涉及到了反身代词和单复数。逻辑修辞题部分重复累赘题、合句题、细节题、引入题、过渡题的比重偏多，没有涉及语气态度题和插句题。各题型解题思路比较常规，比如三道合句题都存在明显的重复和简单的逻辑关系（or/while）；第二篇文章连出两道图表题，对应论点清晰，图表数据也容易理解；词汇题的考查也比较基础（expansion/growth，invoke/evoke）。

SAT数学 

从内容上来看以上大部分都是之前出现过的题型，这也就是文章开头小编建议的，一定要把真题吃透，对考试成绩非常有帮助。

Section3:

函数：一次函数的解析式，图像，y-intercept的含义，二次函数的图像，指数函数的解析式，定义，三角函数的定义方程&方程组：二元一次方程组，根式方程，一元二次方程求根Section4:统计：平均数中位数极差题目三道，常见的条件概率计算题一道函数：一次函数解析式，指数函数定义，以及图像题多道，三角函数定义一题方程：无限解方程一题，方程组无解一题

SAT写作 

本次写作真题是一篇另辟蹊径的女权类议论文，作者试图论证当今的“数据平等”并不真正符合女性的需要。总体来说阅读难度较低，但在选择分析点上存在一定难度。写作对我们的学员来说本身就是一个难点，但细细推敲还是有规律可循的。

你看：文章开篇“权威”论据：从数据上看，女性在部分职位和收入上依然处于“明显弱势”。紧接着作者给出一个设问和两个反问：女性希望得到平等吗？当然，正如她们不想被响尾蛇咬一样答案明确。有趣的反问似乎是作者对女性渴望平权的强调。到此为止是本文的铺垫部分，乍一看大家可能以为又是老套的平权文章，实际上正符合作者的用意：给出一个多年女权运动之后的“常识”：女性从统计学上看依然没有得到平等的权利，她们需要更多的支持。第一个主体段，引出背景、诱导出读者心中的女权“常识”，为在下文转折时令读者恍然大悟做好铺垫。接着用对多个研究的反驳指出，实际上数据上的不平等是一个“mirage”，并不符合女性在职业上的真正选择，她们在选择职业时是有偏向的，而这是有现实原因的，因此一概而论的大数据并不能正确反映女性是否遭遇了职场上的不平等对待。文章后半段，作者对认为女性希望和男性一样平分任何工作和生活场景的观点，进行了澄清。指出许多女性甚至只愿意做非全职工作。Z后作者指出，应该去看女性有没有得到她们想要的，而不是“电子表格”认为她们想要的，向考生厘清了“大数据平权”的根本问题，为女性虚构了一个实现平等的条件。

正文

Do Women Really Want Equality?

1 .The fall season in gender-gap news has started early and with a bang. A study released yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that male doctors earn over 25% more than female doctors. Why am I not surprised? There is a constant stream of stories showing gender disparities like this: that Obama gave only 35% of Cabinet-level posts to women, that men still write 87% of Wikipedia entries, that they are approximately 80% of local news-television and radio managers, and over 75% of philosophers.

2 .After decades of antidiscrimination laws, diversity initiatives and feminist advocacy, such data leads to an uncomfortable question: Do women actually want equality? The answer seems transparently, blindingly, obvious. Do women want to breathe fresh air? Do they want to avoid rattlesnakes and fatal heart attacks?

3 .But from another perspective, the answer is anything but clear. In fact, there’s good reason to think that women don’t want the sort of equality envisioned by government bureaucrats, academics and many feminist advocates, one imagined strictly by the numbers with the goal of a 50-50 breakdown of men and women in C-suites, law-school dean offices, editorial boards and computer-science departments; equal earnings, equal work hours, equal assets, equal time changing diapers and doing the laundry. “A truly equal world,” Sheryl Sandberg wrote in Lean In, which is still on the best-seller lists months after its spring publication, “would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes.” It’s a vision of progress that can only be calculated through the spreadsheets of labor economists, demographers and activist groups.

4 .It would be silly to deny that equality-by-the-numbers researchers can deliver figures that could alarm even an Ann Romney. There’s the puny 4.2% of female Fortune 500 CEOs, the mere 23.7% of female state legislators, the paltry 19% of women in Congress. But while “numbers don’t lie,” they can create mirages that convince us we see something we don’t. Take, for example, the JAMA study about the pay gap between male and female doctors. The study seems to capture yet another example of discrimination against women. But because it fails to consider differences in medical specialty or type of workplace, that appearance may well be an illusion. Surgeons and cardiologists, who have long been in the ranks of the top-earning specialties, remain predominantly male. Meanwhile, as women flooded the profession, they disproportionately chose to become psychiatrists and pediatricians, specialties that have always been among the least lucrative.

5 .There are reasons for this particular wage gap that are gender-blind. Surgeons need more years of training, perform riskier work (at least that’s how malpractice insurers see it) and put in more unpredictable hours. Unsurprisingly, according to surveys, women who become doctors approach their work differently than men. They spend more time with each patient; when choosing jobs, they are far more likely to cite time for family and flexible hours as “very important” and to prefer limited management responsibilities. Male doctors, on the other hand, are more likely to think about career advancement and income potential.

6 .This hints at the problem with the equality-by-the-numbers approach: it presumes women want absolute parity in all things measurable, and that the average woman wants to work as many hours as the average man, that they want to be CEOs, heads of state, surgeons and Cabinet heads just as much as men do. But a consistent majority of women, including those working full time, say they would prefer to work part time or not at all; among men, the number is 19%. And they’re not just talking; in actual practice, 27% of working women are on the job only part time, compared with 11% of men.

7 .Now, a lot of people might say that American women are stymied from pursuing their ambitions because of our miserly maternity leave, day care and workplace-flexibility policies. But even women in the world’s most family-friendly countries show little interest in the equality-by-the-numbers ideal. In Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, according to the OECD, women still work fewer hours and earn less money than men; they also remain a rare sight in executive offices, computer-science classrooms and, though the OECD doesn’t say it I’m willing to bet, philosophy conferences. Sweden, the gold standard of gender equality in many minds, has one of the highest percentages of women working part time anywhere in the world. Equality-by-numbers advocates should be thinking about women’s progress in terms of what women show that they want, not what the spreadsheets say they should want.