新写作模拟题及范文

时间：2023-02-27 理论教育版权反馈

【摘要】：本节提供了10篇新SAT写作的全真模拟题，题材涉及环境、社会、科学、商业和教育等诸多领域，每道题目都提供了高质量的范文及权威解析。

本节提供了10篇新SAT写作的全真模拟题，题材涉及环境、社会、科学、商业和教育等诸多领域，每道题目都提供了高质量的范文及权威解析。

主题：环境类

Theme: Environment

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge stands alone as America's last truly great wilderness. This magnificent area is as vast as it is wild, from the windswept coastal plain where polar bears and caribou give birth to the towering Brooks Range where Dall sheep cling to cliffs and wolves howl in the midnight sun.

More than a decade ago, [my wife] Rosalynn and I had the fortunate opportunity to camp and hike in these regions of the Arctic Refuge. During bright July days, we walked along ancient caribou trails and studied the brilliant mosaic of wildflowers, mosses, and lichens that hugged the tundra. There was a timeless quality about this great land. As the never-setting sun circled above the horizon, we watched muskox, those shaggy survivors of the Ice Age, lumber along braided rivers that meander toward the Beaufort Sea.

One of the most unforgettable and humbling experiences of our lives occurred on the coastal plain. We had hoped to see caribou during our trip, but to our amazement, we witnessed the migration of tens of thousands of caribou with their newborn calves. In a matter of a few minutes, the sweep of tundra before us became flooded with life, with the sounds of grunting animals and clicking hooves filling the air. The dramatic procession of the Porcupine caribou herd was a once-in-a-lifetime wildlife spectacle. We understand firsthand why some have described this special birthplace as "America's Serengeti".

Standing on the coastal plain, I was saddened to think of the tragedy that might occur if this great wilderness was consumed by a web of roads and pipelines, drilling rigs and industrial facilities. Such proposed developments would forever destroy the wilderness character of America's only Arctic Refuge and disturb countless numbers of animals that depend on this northernmost terrestrial ecosystem.

The extraordinary wilderness and wildlife values of the Arctic Refuge have long been recognized by both Republican and Democratic presidents. In 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the original 8.9 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range to preserve its unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values. Twenty years later, I signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, monumental legislation that safeguarded more than 100 million acres of national parks, refuges, and forests in Alaska. This law specifically created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, doubled the size of the former range, and restricted development in areas that are clearly incompatible with oil exploration.

Since I left office, there have been repeated proposals to open the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to oil drilling. Those attempts have failed because of tremendous opposition by the American people, including the Gwich'in Athabascan Indians of Alaska and Canada, indigenous people whose culture has depended on the Porcupine caribou herd for thousands of years. Having visited many aboriginal peoples around the world, I can empathize with the Gwich'ins' struggle to safeguard one of their precious human rights.

We must look beyond the alleged benefits of a short-term economic gain and focus on what is really at stake. At best, the Arctic Refuge might provide 1 to 2 percent of the oil our country consumes each day. We can easily conserve more than that amount by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles. Instead of tearing open the heart of our greatest refuge, we should use our resources more wisely.

There are few places on earth as wild and free as the Arctic Refuge. It is a symbol of our national heritage, a remnant of frontier America that our first settlers once called wilderness. Little of that precious wilderness remains.

It will be a grand triumph for America if we can preserve the Arctic Refuge in its pure, untrammeled state. To leave this extraordinary land alone would be the greatest gift we could pass on to future generations.

Write an essay in which you explain how Jimmy Carter builds an argument to persuade his audience that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be developed for industry.

参考范文

In the foreword to Subhankar Banerjee's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey, former US President Jimmy Carter argues in favor of protecting the Arctic Refuge from industrial development proposals. The author effectively builds his argument by using a personal anecdote, voice of authority, statistical evidence.

Carter begins the essay with a glorification of the Arctic Refuge. He recounts a personal anecdote that effectively conveys the sense of wonder he and his wife felt while hiking through the vast wilderness. The vivid portrayal of the sights and sounds of this magnificent setting, where the "the never-setting sun" and "ancient caribou trails" combine to provide a "timeless quality," creates for the readers a particularly positive association between beauty and the wild and untampered nature of the Refuge. In addition, Carter succeeds in also describing an encounter with a dramatic migration of thousands of caribou and their newborn calves that made his trip truly unique and memorable. His identification of many of the Refuge's inhabitants as species native to North America stresses the fact that this "America's Serengeti" deserves national attention. This anecdote achieves in leading the readers through an emotional journey: from an admiration of natural beauty to a more active sense of patriotism and duty. Any reader experiencing these feelings would be swayed to side with Carter in defense of preserving nature.

Carter then makes reference to his past political involvement in environmental legislations. As former President of the United States, he specifically signed into law an Act that established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This direct political involvement qualifies him as someone responsible for delivering meaningful change during his presidency and makes a powerful ethical appeal to the readers. In addition, Carter makes it clear that his call to action to other Americans in preserving the Arctic Refuge does not simply stem from the nostalgia of a one-time hike. Instead, it stems from his long political record where he pioneered the preservation efforts for the Arctic Refuge. His argument for environmental protection benefits directly from his unique background as someone who can engage in the discourse about the Arctic Refuge with authority and is personally invested in how this particular landmark thrives in the future.

Towards the end of the essay, the author uses statistics and facts to outline clear reasons against expanding a pipeline. He points out how "at best, the Arctic Refuge might provide 1 to 2 percent of the oil our country consumes every day." Carter entrusts his readers to recognize that the reward for industry is simply too insignificant to justify any effort in ravaging a wild sanctuary. Additionally, he offers a simple solution for easily making up this energy difference by all of us making more of an effort to conserve fuel when we drive. Carter effectively strengthens his argument when he appeals to logic of the readers and presents a straightforward cost and benefit analysis. Any support in favor of short-term economic gain is rendered defunct when no reader would logically choose to "use our resources more wisely" over "tearing open the heart of our greatest refuge."

Urging Americans not to allow the Arctic Refuge be developed for industry, Carter writes that we must instead preserve it as a symbol of our national heritage. He built this argument by appealing to the readers' pathos, logos, and ethos.

范文译文

在Subhankar Banerjee的《北极国家野生动物保护区：生命和土地的四季——一次摄影之旅》的前言中，美国前总统吉米•卡特反对了在北极保护区发展工业的提案。作者用个人轶事、权威言论和统计数据对他的观点进行了有力的论证。

首先，卡特以赞颂北极之美开始整篇文章，用一则轶事表现了他和夫人徒步穿越广袤荒原时的惊奇之情。文中，生动地描绘了这片宏伟土地的美景与声音，“不落的太阳”和“古代驯鹿的足迹”交织出一种“永恒的气质”，让读者感到保护区的美与保护区的野性之间存在一种特别的、积极的联系。此外，卡特还成功地描写了与数千只驯鹿和鹿崽军相遇的情景。这支浩浩荡荡的迁徙大军使他的旅行独特而难忘。卡特指出，很多在保护区栖居的动物都是北美本地的物种，凸显了保护区作为“美国的塞伦盖蒂平原”理应得到全国关注。这则轶事成功地带领读者完成了一段感情旅程：他们的情感由对自然美景的赞美上升到更强烈的爱国主义情感和责任感。任何有相同感受的读者都会被说服，进而加入卡特支持保护自然的行列。

接着，卡特提到了他曾作为政治家参与的环保立法。作为美国前总统，他曾经专门签署了一个法案，而正是该法案使得北极国家野生动物保护区得以建立。这一直接的政治参与活动让他在任职期间树立了负责任的变革者的形象，并让读者产生了强烈的道德共鸣。此外，卡特还明确表明，他号召其他美国人一起维护北极保护区并非仅仅源于怀念那一次远足，而是在延续他长久以来的政治历程，是他开启了北极保护区的保护工作。他能作为权威人士参与有关北极保护区的对话，并且全力投入这个特殊地标的未来发展，这一独特的背景使得他对支持环保的呼吁更有分量。

文章最后，作者用数据及事实明确概述了其反对扩张输油管道的原因。他指出，“北极保护区每天最多能满足我国石油消费需求的1%至2%”。卡特期望读者意识到，产业上的收益微不足道，不能作为破坏野生动物保护区的借口。此外，他还给出了一个简单的解决方案来填补这一能源空缺，即所有人在驾车时更加注重节约能源。之后，卡特又进一步巩固了论点，他号召读者思考这其中的逻辑关系，还展示了一个简单明了的成本效益分析。如果读者不能在“理智利用资源”和“破坏我们最伟大的保护区”之间做出理智选择，那么任何支持短期经济收益的观点都会变得毫无意义。

为了敦促美国人不要在北极保护区发展工业，卡特写到，我们必须把它作为我们的国家遗产加以保护。他通过诉诸于读者的感情共鸣、理性逻辑、权威可信度支持了自己的论点。

材料点评

这是一篇关于环境保护方面的文章，其主要内容是前美国总统卡特反对把北极国家野生动物保护区工业化的方案。

首先，从文章的第2~4段，我们可以看到作者以第一人称叙述的一段个人经历，这段关于作者及其妻子在北极国家野生动物保护区游览时的所感所悟，是作者为了唤起读者共鸣而采用的论证策略。

其次，文章的第5段和第7段都运用了事实和数据，这种修辞策略可以让论证更有真实性和说服力。

最后，整篇文章的措辞都非常具有表现力，可以很好地达到引起读者情感共鸣的效果。

注释：北极国家野生动物保护区位于美国阿拉斯加州东北部的阿拉斯加北坡区，成立于1960年，占地78050平方千米，是美国最大的国家野生动物保护区，旨在保护北极地区得天独厚的野生环境、独一无二的野生动植物、面积广阔的荒地和令人向往的娱乐价值。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：简洁精确的语言

● 考生用简洁精确的语言概括了这篇文章的主旨，概括时既不太泛泛也不是太冗长；

● 考生并未直接引用大段的原文，而是用自己的转述语言进行了解析；

● 考生能够清晰有条理地说明Carter是如何使用细节来支持主旨的。

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：充分解读主要论证特征

考生在文中认真全面地解释了Carter是如何通过使用个人轶事和数据事实等方法来展开议论的。例如，考生分析了Carter为何采用个人轶事这一手段进行开篇，并从功能性和对读者产生的效果两个方面，深度分析了Carter采用个人轶事这一方式开篇的作用。除此之外，文中还提到作者使用了Ethos这种修辞策略，并进行了深度分析。

Eg. Carter begins the essay with a glorification of the Arctic Refuge. He recounts a personal anecdote that effectively conveys the sense of wonder he and his wife felt while hiking through the vast wilderness. The vivid portrayal of the sights and sounds of this magnificent setting, where the "the never-setting sun" and "ancient caribou trails" combine to provide a "timeless quality," creates for the readers a particularly positive association between beauty and the wild and untampered nature of the Refuge.

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：结构连贯，用词准确

这篇文章有清晰明确的主旨，篇章的主体段紧密围绕着原文的三个主体部分进行结构展开。每一个段落内部的观点递进也清晰严谨。开头段和结尾段的写作技巧纯熟简明，很好地概括了原文的主旨及其全篇分析结构。全篇用词准确，措辞得当，句式变换多样，且使用了很多高级的复杂句。

Eg. The vivid portrayal of the sights and sounds of this magnificent setting, where the "the never-setting sun" and "ancient caribou trails" combine to provide a "timeless quality," creates for the readers a particularly positive association between beauty and the wild and untampered nature of the Refuge.

主题：政治演讲类

Theme: Political Speech

Adapted from Martin Luther King Jr., "Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence." The speech was delivered at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967.

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have ... major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white —through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My [next] reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years — especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. ... Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be — are — led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

Write an essay in which you explain how Martin Luther King Jr. builds an argument to persuade his audience that American involvement in the Vietnam War is unjust.

参考范文

During a period in history when racial segregation was in its final straws but still prevalent across the United States, the country's African American population faced great atrocity from being sent off to fight in a war they did not want to participate in. In his speech, Martin Luther King Jr. persuades the audience that America's involvement in the Vietnam War is unjust. He constructs this argument through the use of personification, facts and figures, and rhetorical questions.

The speaker use personification to bring emphasis to several important issues. He first does this in paragraph 1, where he paints the war as "an enemy of the poor." King employs this strong language to clearly characterize the Vietnam War as highly objectionable. The war diverted funds from rehabilitation programs for the poor and struck at the heart of King's agenda for racial equality. Personification contributes to King's argument by turning the war into a tangible scapegoat. He challenges the readers to not treat war as an entity that we should blindly accept from the government, but rather as something that must be questioned and attacked. King then personifies America in paragraph 4 as having a soul that's poisoned by war. Again, he stirs the emotions of the readers into seeing the war as something particularly vile and regrettable. The words "enemy" and "poison" evoke powerful imagery of the gruesome nature of warfare. King carefully crafts this language to convince the readers to share in his loath for the Vietnam War.

King next lists the facts where the war has been particularly cruel. The country sent out "extraordinarily high proportions [of the poor] relative to the rest of the population" to fight and die in Vietnam. By stating how the poor were already "crippled by our society," he expounds the injustice exercised by the country in worsening their state by sending them off to fight in a foreign land "eight thousand miles away." This furthers his line of argument by demonstrating how the war selectively manipulated a portion of the population already facing hardships at home. For audience members who had friends and family involved in the war, this reminder of the exploitive nature of war is emotionally charging. For the modern readers, King's presentation of these facts also crushes any lingering possibility of accepting the war as being righteous.

Finally, King lets rhetorical questions reveal how the Vietnam War ran in direct contradiction to his efforts as a civil rights activist. He addresses the fury and discontent from the young men of the ghettoes who asked "What about Vietnam?" and why they should adhere to nonviolent civil disobedience when the country was free to solve its own problems with violence. King explains how the war has derailed all of his past efforts to propel the younger generations of African Americans and led him to redefine himself as anti-war. This structure of candid discourse enhances King's moral character and makes him more relatable to his audience. His genuine fight against the injustice is clarified when the audience becomes in tune with his sense of ethics, his role in society, and his sense of duty.

King makes a passionate pitch for how the Vietnam War has unjustly exploited the poor black community of 1960s America. He builds this argument by using personification, facts and figures, and rhetorical questions in appealing to the audience's pathos, logos, and ethos.

范文译文

在种族隔离即将成为历史但仍盛行于美国之时，非裔美国人被迫赶赴战场，加入一场他们不愿参与的战争。马丁•路德•金在演讲中试图说服听众，美国参与越战是非正义的。他运用拟人、事实和数据以及反问等手法将其论述层层推进。

马丁•路德•金利用拟人的手法强调了若干要点。首先，他在第一段中将这场战争称作“穷人的敌人”。这一严厉的措辞清楚地表明越战不容接受。战争转移了用于扶贫项目的资金，给了金的种族平等进程致命一击。金在论证中利用拟人手法，将战争指为替罪羊，使论证更加有力。他激励读者不要盲目接受政府的战争决定，而要对其进行质疑和攻击。接下来，金在第四段中将美国比作一个灵魂受到战争毒害的人。他再次调动读者的感情，让他们将战争视为卑鄙与不幸的化身。“敌人”和“毒药”这两个词直指战争的丑恶本质。金精心措辞以说服读者和他一起反对越战。

金随后列举事实，展示了战场的特别残酷之处。在被派往越南参与战争而牺牲的军人中，“穷人的比例远远高于其他群体”。他说穷人已经“在社会的重压下举步维艰”，而国家还要把他们送往“8000英里外”的异国战场，使得他们的境况雪上加霜，更说明了政府的所行不义。通过揭露战争如何选择性地操纵了一部分在国内已经身处困境的人，金将他的论证往前推进了一步。对听众中那些参战人员的朋友和家属而言，战争具有剥削性这一提醒使读者在情感上得到了号召。对现代读者而言，这些事实让他们再也无法接受任何将这场战争与正义挂钩的可能性。

最后，金用反问的形式揭示了越战完全有悖于他作为民权活动家所做的工作。他回答了贫民区年轻人愤懑的质问“那越南呢？”以及为什么国家可以随心所欲地诉诸武力而他们要坚持非暴力不合作？金解释道，战争破坏了他一直以来为激励年轻一代非裔美国人所做的努力，并促使他将自己重新定义为反战主义者。这种坦率的论述提升了金的道德魅力，使他更贴近读者。随着听众对他的伦理观、社会作用和责任感产生认同，他与非正义的抗争便明朗了起来。

金掷地有声地揭露了越战对二十世纪六十年代美国黑人群体的不公平剥削。他运用了拟人、事实与数据、反问等手法，并通过诉诸于听众的感情共鸣、理性逻辑、道德共鸣等支持了自己的论点。

材料点评

这是一篇关于人权和反战方面的演讲。演讲是议论文（Argument）的最原始的形式，对于这类阅读材料的研究非常有参考价值。作为著名人权领袖，马丁•路德•金表达了自己对美国人，尤其是非裔美国人参战的强烈反对。这篇演讲稿最有特点的地方就是使用了三种修辞策略（Rhetorical Strategy），即Logos、Pathos和Ethos，让文章极具说服力。

注释：越南战争是二战以后美国参战人数最多、影响最重大的战争，后因国内的反战浪潮汹涌，美国逐渐将国防军撤出越南。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：结构合理

开头段有主旨句并点明了文章的三个主要特征。段内结构非常有条理。

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：充分解读主要论证特征

认真全面地解释了King如何通过使用拟人、事实和反问等修辞手法来展开他的议论。例如，文中分析了King对于反问的应用，并指出这一手法实现了道德诉求。

Eg. King lets rhetorical questions reveal how the Vietnam War ran in direct contradiction to his efforts as a civil rights activist. He addresses the fury and discontent from the young men of the ghettoes who asked "What about Vietnam?" and why they should adhere to nonviolent civil disobedience when the country was free to solve its own problems with violence. King explains how the war has derailed all of his past efforts to propel the younger generations of African Americans and led him to redefine himself as anti-war.

写作能力部分

高分技巧：结构连贯，用词准确

这篇文章有明确的主旨，段落结构清晰合理，全文连贯。全篇用词准确，措辞得当，句式变换多样，且使用了很多高级的复杂句。

主题：教育类

Theme: Education

By all measures, this generation of American kids (ages 3 to 18) is the tech-savviest in history: 27% of them use tablets, 43% use smartphones, and 52% use laptops. And in just a few weeks they will start the most tech-saturated school year ever: Los Angeles County alone will spend $30 million on classroom iPads this year, outfitting 640,000 kids by late 2014.

Yet, according to the latest findings from the research firm Grunwald Associates, barely half of U.S. parents agree that mobile technology should play a more prominent role in schools. Some are even paying as much as $24,000 to send their kids to monthlong "digital detox" programs like the one at Capio Nightingale Hospital in the U.K.

So who's right — the mom trying to protect her kids from the perils of new technology or the dad who's coaching his kids to embrace it? It's an urgent question at a time when more than 80% of U.S. school districts say they are on the cusp of incorporating Web-enabled tablets into everyday curriculums.

For years, the Parental Adage was simple: The less time spent with screens, the better. That thinking stems from, among other things, reports about the rise of cyberbullying ... as well as the fact that social media —specifically the sight of others looking happy in photos — can make kids feel depressed and insecure.

There's also a fundamental aversion to sitting kids in front of screens, thanks to decades of studies proving that watching too much TV can lead to obesity, violence and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

In that vein, the Waldorf Schools — a consortium of private K-12 schools in North America designed to "connect children to nature" and "ignite passion for lifelong learning" — limit tech in the classroom and bar the use of smartphones, laptops, televisions and even radios at home. "You could say some computer games develop creativity," says Lucy Wurtz, an administrator at the Waldorf School in Los Altos, Calif., minutes from Silicon Valley. "But I don't see any benefit. Waldorf kids knit and build things and paint — a lot of really practical and creative endeavors."

But it's not that simple. While there are dangers inherent in access to Facebook, new research suggests that social-networking sites also offer unprecedented learning opportunities. "Online, kids can engage with specialized communities of interest," says Mimi Ito, an anthropologist at the University of California at Irvine who's studying how technology affects young adults. "They're no longer limited by what's offered in school."

Early tech use has cognitive benefits as well. Although parenting experts have questioned the value of educational games — as Jim Taylor, author of Raising Generation Tech, puts it, "they're a load of crap ... meant to make money" — new studies have shown they can add real value. In a recent study by SRI, a nonprofit research firm, kids who played games like Samorost (solving puzzles) did 12% better on logic tests than those who did not. And at MIT's Education Arcade, playing the empire-building game Civilization piqued students' interest in history and was directly linked to an improvement in the quality of their history-class reports.

The reason: engagement. On average, according to research cited by MIT, students can remember only 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear and 50% of what they see demonstrated. But when they're actually doing something themselves — in the virtual worlds on iPads or laptops — that retention rate skyrockets to 90%.

This is a main reason researchers like Ito say the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation of a two-hour screen-time limit is an outdated concept: actively browsing pages on a computer or tablet is way more brain-stimulating than vegging out in front of the TV.

The most convincing argument for early-age tech fluency, however, is more basic: staying competitive. "If you look at applying for college or a job, that's on the computer," says Shawn Jackson, principal of Spencer Tech, a public school in one of Chicago's lower-income neighborhoods. Ditto the essential skills for jobs in fast-growing sectors such as programming, engineering and biotechnology. "If we're not exposing our students to this stuff early," Jackson continues, "they're going to be left behind." ...

None of this means kids deserve unfettered access to the gadget of their choice — especially if, as McGrath notes, they've already been caught abusing it. As with any childhood privilege, monitoring is key. But parents should keep an open mind about the benefits of tech fluency.

Write an essay in which you explain how Eliana Dockterman builds an argument to persuade her audience that there are benefits to early exposure to technology.

参考范文

In a digital age where kids are spending more time on cell phones and computers, Dockterman argues that there are benefits to early exposure to technology in her article "The Digital Parent Trap." She effectively builds her argument by using statistical studies, facts, and expert opinions.

In building up her case, the author first offers ample statistical studies to demonstrate how using technology benefits intellectual development. She points to several indicators of academic achievement that reveal the ways in which technological exposure contributes to learning for the "tech-savviest [generation] in history." One study shows how "kids who played games like Samorost (solving puzzles) did 12% better on logic tests than those who did not" while another shows how students' participation "in the virtual worlds on iPads or laptops" allows their retention rate to skyrocket from less than 50% to 90%. Because the subjects of these studies are children who have improved in measurable areas from employing technology, the data logically lead the readers to the conclusion that technology should be embraced as educational tools for academic success.

Dockterman further shows that educational institutes already recognize the need for early technological exposure. By referring to the fact that "27% of [kids] use tablets, 43% use smartphones, and 52% use laptops," the author first draws the readers' attention to an intrinsic characteristic of this young generation and how it may uniquely affect the way they learn. The author goes on to say that "Los Angeles County alone will spend $30 million on classroom iPads this year, outfitting 640,000 kids by late 2014" and "80% of U.S. school districts say they are on the cusp of incorporating Web-enabled tablets into everyday curriculums." By presenting the mentality of leaders in education who recognize that times are changing and have adjusted their institutions accordingly, the author achieves in validating her own argument for reaching this same conclusion. By highlighting the state of current academic spending and providing justification for them, the author constructs a logical synthesis of existing trends and patterns.

Finally, Dockterman incorporates expert opinions to persuade the audience of the value that technology provides over the long-run. Anthropologists like Mimi Ito at the University of California at Irvine offers the view that online communities provide students with an avenue to acquire specialized interests that are beyond what is offered in the classroom. Shawn Jackson, principal of Spencer Tech, talks of how technology fosters the skills that prepare students for when they are applying for college or a job. By presenting these refreshing expert viewpoints, the author enhances her argument to expand the benefits of technology to those that extend beyond the academic performance as measured by statistical studies. The readers are introduced to the significant life skills that technology can help children acquire for many years down the road.

Having thoroughly researched on the topic and carefully evaluated the evidence in support of her argument, Dockterman has created an exposition that appeals to the readers' logos, ethos, and pathos. Her argument for the benefits of early exposure to technology is supported by her use of statistics, facts, and expert opinions.

范文译文

在这个数字时代，孩子们玩手机和电脑的时间越来越多，Dockterman在她的文章《数字家长教育陷阱》中主张孩子从小接触科技是有益的。她运用统计数据、事实案例及专家观点对其论点进行了强有力的论证。

在论证的时候，作者首先给出了充分的统计数据，阐明了使用科技如何促进智力的发展。她指出了学术成就的几个标志，这些标志揭示了接触科技如何促使学生成为“有史以来最精通科技的一代”。一项研究表明，“那些玩银河历险记（解谜游戏）这种游戏的孩子比那些不玩游戏的孩子在逻辑测试上的得分高出12%”。另一项研究表明，学生“在平板电脑或者手提电脑上参与虚拟世界”使得他们的记忆率从不到50%飞跃到90%。因为这些研究的对象是已经在多个可评估领域因使用科技而得到提高的孩子，所以这些数据自然而然地使读者认为，我们应该支持把科技作为取得学术成就的教育工具。

Dockterman进一步说明教育机构已经意识到有必要让孩子从小接触科技。通过指出这样一个事实——“27%的孩子使用平板电脑，43%的孩子使用智能手机，52%的孩子使用手提电脑”，作者首先让读者注意到年轻一代的本质特点以及这个特点如何能独特地影响他们的学习方式。作者继续写道，“仅洛杉矶今年就将花费三千万美元用于购置课堂平板电脑，到2014年末将配备给640,000个孩子”，还有，“80%的美国学区说他们正在把连接网络的平板电脑整合到日常课程中”。教育界领导人意识到时代变了，并且与时俱进地调整了学校的教育方式，作者通过陈述他们的想法进而证实了自己得出相同结论的合理性。通过突出强调当前的教育支出现状及为其提供论证，作者合乎逻辑地综合了当前的趋势。

最后，Dockterman整合专家观点来说服读者认识到科技给我们带来的长远价值。来自加州大学欧文分校的Mimi Ito一类的人类学家认为，在线团体给学生们提供了一个发展专门兴趣的途径，这一途径给予的比课堂提供的还要多。Spencer Tech的校长Shawn Jackson也谈到了科技是如何帮助学生学到技能，从而为其申请大学与就业做准备的。通过阐述这些专家的新颖观点，作者进一步巩固了其论点，即科技带来的好处已超越了用数据衡量的学术领域。通过介绍，读者了解了在孩子今后的人生道路上科技能帮助他们获得的重要生活技能。

Dockterman全面研究了这一话题，仔细评估了论据，并通过诉诸于读者的感情共鸣、理性逻辑、权威可信度阐述了她的论点。她运用数据、事实及专家观点论证了孩子从小接触科技的益处。

材料点评

这是一篇关于幼儿早教方面的文章。作者针对在数字时代应该让孩子尽早接触科技产品这一观点展开了充分的论述。

注释：早教从广义上指的是从出生到小学以前的教育，狭义上主要指上述阶段的早期学习。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：主旨与细节的关联

考生在文中非常有效地阐释了原文中心意思与重要细节之间的联系。

Eg. In building up her case, the author first offers ample statistical studies to demonstrate…. She points to…. Dockterman further shows that….

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：说明主要特征与主旨的关系

考生能够识别文章的主要特征，并能够清晰地说明这些特征是如何支持Dockterman的论述的。比如，考生充分解释了Dockterman对于一组数据研究的使用是如何从逻辑上逐步引导读者相信其论点的。每一段直接引用都结合了解释和分析，而且全面评析了每一种修辞手段给读者带来的效果。这种深入的分析贯穿了全文，展现了考生优秀的分析能力。

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：结构连贯，用词准确

这篇文章有清晰明确的主旨，很好地概括了全篇的分析结构。每个主体段都能围绕一个特征有效地展开。作文选词、用词准确，还包括了很多复杂高级的句子。

Eg. By presenting the mentality of leaders in education who recognize that times are changing and have adjusted their institutions accordingly, the author achieves in validating her own argument for reaching this same conclusion.

主题：商业类

Theme: Business

The Occupy Wall Street movement is largely fueled by a relatively small set of young people who view the protests as a fight for their future. The vast majority, however, are getting up and going to work every day — or wishing they could. These individuals are part of a less dramatic but, perhaps, equally powerful movement of Millennials shaping the future of business. As consumers, employees and entrepreneurs, Millennials are shifting the norms of corporate America's conduct, ethical imperatives and purpose. In his book, "The Way We'll Be," pollster John Zogby documents how these "First Globals" are more conscientious consumers than their predecessors, demanding greater honesty and accountability from businesses.

Millennials are bringing their values into the career equation by placing a premium on employers' reputation for social responsibility and the opportunities those companies and organizations provide their employees to make a positive impact on society. Sixty-one percent of 18- to 26-year-olds polled in a 2011 Deloitte Volunteer IMPACT survey said they would prefer to work for a company that offers volunteer opportunities. Over the past decade, this generational shift has pushed these programs to be more sophisticated, generating billions of dollars of pro bono support for nonprofits and activating millions of skilled volunteers.

Even as the economy has slowed, companies are expanding volunteer programs because these programs attract, develop, motivate and retain the most dynamic and passionate employees. The most innovative of these companies also understand these programs as critical to their bottom line. IBM's Corporate Service Corps, launched in 2008, has deployed 1,200 IBMers to more than 20 countries, in both a highly competitive leadership development program and a rigorous endeavor to bring the corporation's skills to bear on complex problems in developing communities. IBM Chairman and CEO Sam Palmisano said at the program's founding that "we fully expect [this] will make IBM a more competitive and successful business."

Millennials, as consumers, are pushing companies to change the ways of doing business to align with the values of civic and global responsibility largely held by Millennials. Monitoring supply chains, safeguarding labor and environmental conditions for the creation of products and embracing environmental sustainability have become basic requirements to preserve relationships with customers and retain young employees. A recent market study by the public relations firm Edelman shows that consumers now expect brands to support causes. Many companies are responding to this market shift in ways that integrate causes fully into their business strategy and brand identities. Earlier this year, the Millennial founders of GOOD Magazine launched a subsidiary consulting business called GOOD/Corps, which is helping some of the world's most recognizable brands navigate and profit from what they call the "Values Revolution" driven by this generation. Companies like Pepsi, Toyota and Starbucks are seeking their guidance on building the meaningful connections that these consumers demand.

While Millennials are transforming established businesses, they are also starting a new breed of businesses with built-in social missions that are resonating with the marketplace and revolutionizing their sectors. TOMS Shoes was founded in 2006 by 30-year-old Blake Mycoskie and has quickly become one of the fastest-growing apparel companies in the world. Well known for its groundbreaking "One-for-One" model that donates a pair of shoes in the developing world for every pair sold, it is also growing a fiercely loyal and active following through its anti-poverty advocacy efforts. It is hard to imagine a traditional shoe brand being able to mobilize a network of 1,200 campus chapters and 250,000 young people in a single day to promote its brand, but that is exactly what TOMS has accomplished with its "One Day Without Shoes" campaign.

Despite the economic downturn and the headlines, the nation's private sector is still lively. The values behind Occupy Wall Street are manifesting themselves in the marketplace and companies that are failing to take notice should start. These people-powered movements may not have stopped the markets in their tracks, but they are creating the demand for new forms of corporate behavior and ethical imperatives. The winning brands of the future will be ones that authentically respond.

Write an essay in which you explain how Michelle Nunn builds an argument to persuade her audience that millennials are effectively shaping the future of businesses through their everyday behaviors as employees, consumers, and entrepreneurs.

参考范文

The millennials are a passionate and socially conscious generation. Most of us would remember the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 and their iconic protest against social and economic inequality. But to Michelle Nunn, most millennials hold a job and express their ideologies through means that need not be as dramatic. In The Washington Post, Nunn argues that millennials are effectively shaping the future of businesses through their everyday behaviors as employees, consumers, and entrepreneurs. Nunn utilizes statistics, brand recognition, and an anecdote to support her argument.

The author first utilizes a series of statistics to highlight how corporations have responded to the ideologies of millennials as employees. By citing a poll that states 61% of 18- to 26-year-olds "would prefer to work for a company that offers volunteer opportunities," Nunn emphasizes how just important it is for millennials that the companies they represent do pro bono work and give back to society. As a result, the past decade saw not only a greater activation of skilled labor within firms devoted to volunteering, but also billions of dollars contributed to nonprofit organizations. The figures presented here are staggering and a testament to the author's argument that millennials are collectively making decisions that can sway companies to take notice. In return, giants like IBM have sent out hundreds of their employees to volunteer in more than 20 developing countries. Nunn appeals to the reader's sense of logos when the truths in these figures undeniably support her argument of the power of collective ideology.

Next the author uses recognizable brand names to strengthen her argument that the millennials are also making quite an impact on corporate giants as consumers. The billions of dollars are spent by companies with the name recognition like "Pepsi, Toyota and Starbucks" that understand embracing social responsibility makes good for business. In a true vote with your feet fashion, millennials are selective consumers who support brands that align with their own values of civil and global responsibility. By mentioning the names of known brands, Nunn demonstrates that when millennials stay true to their convictions, major corporations take notice. The companies that don't yet know how to connect with their millennial consumers must then play catch-up by hiring consulting firms founded by people in tune with the millennial mindset. Nunn strengthens her own argument in the process by bringing it to light that if large corporations are mindful of this current ideological trend, then we as readers should too. The brand names serve to provide the writing with context and make it more relatable to the everyday reader.

Finally, the author introduces the anecdote of a company that launched with the specific purpose of catering to millennial ideologies. TOMS Shoes, with its "groundbreaking ‘One-for-One' model" and fiercely loyal following on college campuses, is a prime example of a company started by millennials and has adhered to the mindset of a generation. The use of an anecdote here succeeds in providing a detailed profile of a company and convinces the reader that good business goes hand-in-hand with a penetration of millennial ideals. It appeals to the readers' emotions by allowing them to share in the excitement and fervor of a business model that focuses on corporate responsibility. This contributes to the final portion of the author's argument that entrepreneurial millennials are launching their own companies as part of shaping the future of businesses in America.

The author succeeds in urging the readers to also jump on the bandwagon of embracing the argument that millennials are shaping the future of businesses. She does so through the use of statistics, recognizable brand names, and an anecdote.

范文译文

千禧一代是充满激情而且关心社会的一代。大多数人都记得2011年的占领华尔街运动，那些人抗议社会经济的不公平，他们如偶像一般。但是对于Michelle Nunn来说，千禧一代中的大多数人都有工作，并且不必用声势浩大的方式来宣传他们的主张。在《华盛顿邮报》上，Michelle Nunn认为，作为员工、消费者及企业家的千禧一代正通过他们的日常行为有效地塑造着商业的未来。Nunn运用数据、品牌意识及一则轶事来支持其论点。

作者首先使用了一系列数据强调企业应对自己对千禧一代作为员工的态度。一项民意调查表明，在18到26岁的人中，有61%说他们“更喜欢在那些提供志愿者服务机会的公司工作”，Nunn引用这个民意调查来强调，对千禧一代来说，他们所代表的公司做公益性工作、回馈社会非常重要。因此，在过去十年我们看到，不仅公司的技术员工更多地投身于志愿者工作，而且给非盈利组织的捐赠也有数十亿美元之多。这里展示的数据非常惊人，同时也证明了作者的论点，即千禧一代正在共同做出能够吸引公司注意力的决定。像IBM这样的巨头已经派出了成百上千的员工前往20多个发展中国家从事志愿工作。Nunn用这些真实的数据无可辩驳地支持了自己的论点，指出了集体意识形态的力量，从而唤起读者理性的共鸣。

接下来作者用具有辨识度的品牌名字巩固其论点——千禧一代作为消费者也对企业巨头产生了很大影响。像“百事、丰田、星巴克”这样的著名企业已为社会奉献了数十亿美元，因为他们认为承担社会责任对生意是有利的。在这个立场分明的选择中，千禧一代是挑剔的消费者，他们会支持那些在公民责任和全球责任方面与其价值观一致的品牌。Nunn提到这些知名品牌是为了表明，如果千禧一代坚持自己的信念，就会引起大公司的关注。那些还不知道如何与千禧一代消费者对接的公司必须跟上节奏，雇佣与千禧一代思想一致的人建立的咨询公司。Nunn在这个过程中巩固了她的论点，同时也提到，如果大企业意识到了当前的这一思想趋势，那么我们作为读者也应该知道。品牌名称的使用为文章注入了实质的情景内容，同时也使其更贴近读者。

最后，作者介绍了一则公司的轶事，这个公司是专门为了迎合千禧一代的意识形态而成立的。汤姆斯布鞋，以其独创的“‘你一双，她/他一双’的销售模式”，无比忠实地追随大学校园风格，成为了由千禧一代创办并且坚持这一代人的观念的公司中最好的例子。这则轶事成功地介绍了该公司的详细信息，使读者相信企业的成功与对千禧一代的思想意识具有很强的洞察力密不可分。它唤起了读者的情感，使他们共同体会到一个关注企业责任感的商业模式是多么令人兴奋和感动。这也为作者论证的最后一部分打下了基础，即千禧一代的企业家们也正在创办自己的公司，以此来塑造美国商业的未来。

作者通过运用数据、知名品牌及一则轶事，成功地说服读者支持她的观点——千禧一代正在改变商业的未来。

材料点评

这篇阅读材料探讨了美国“千禧一代”对商业社会的积极影响。文章的开篇使用了“占领华尔街”的事件，引出千禧一代中的大部分人并不是反抗者而是社会经济主力军的观点。第二段用一项调查说明这个群体是公益事业的重要参与者。第三段给出了大量数据，进一步从细节上阐释他们对公益事业的贡献。这篇文章的另一个独特之处就是对于品牌事例的使用。

注释：“千禧一代”指的是20世纪90年代初期出生、21世纪初期进入成人期的一代。这一词汇源于1991年威廉•施特劳斯和尼尔•豪出版的Generations一书，书中陈述了他们的社会时代阶层理论，后被称为“施特劳斯-豪代际理论”。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：结构完整，概括具体

考生在开头段用转述性语言完整地评析了阅读材料开头段的观点，并且具体说明了千禧一代作为员工、消费者及企业家三个层面的意义。

作者能够充分谈及文章的主要细节及这些细节与主旨的密切关系。

Eg. By citing a poll that states 61% of 18- to 26-year-olds "would prefer to work for a company that offers volunteer opportunities,"….

The billions of dollars are spent by companies with the name recognition like "Pepsi, Toyota and Starbucks" that understand embracing social responsibility makes good for business.

This contributes to the final portion of the author's argument that entrepreneurial millennials are launching their own companies as part of shaping the future of businesses in America.

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：特征效果评析

作者能够深度分析文章的主要特征并谈及这些特征的效果。

Eg. Nunn appeals to the reader's sense of logos when the truths in these figures undeniably support her argument of the power of collective ideology.

The brand names serve to provide the writing with context and make it more relatable to the everyday reader.

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：用词得当，句法多样化

文章用词比较准确，比如下面例句中的“staggering”“collectively”“sway”等。文章句式变换多样，且使用了很多高级的复杂句。

Eg. The figures presented here are staggering and a testament to the author's argument that millennials are collectively making decisions that can sway companies to take notice.

主题：社会活动类

Theme: Social Activity

Passing through the San Francisco airport recently, I ran into a couple I know who were waiting to pick up their teenage children. "Coming back from camp?" I asked. They responded with a gaze that could curdle milk into yogurt. Their kids were coming back "from their service trip to Guatemala," their mother informed me. "It was a wonderful volunteer experience; they really are improving lives." Gee, and I thought my kid was doing well by working at Jamba Juice this summer.

A little digging turned up some information about these service trips. One is called the Global Leadership Adventure: Children of the Maya. "Volunteer at a Maya school, attend a ceremony with a Maya shaman," the website reads. You'll receive 30 hours of community-service credit — also known as college-application fodder —for only $2,999. For $200 more, head to Ghana for two weeks to "improve local health and living conditions, live just steps away from the beach." What about investing the same $2,999 in Guatemalan entrepreneurs? Fat chance. Volun-tourism is charity for the giver.

I understand that overbearing parents encourage their children toward such do-good interludes, hoping that it will get them into Brown, but why does this generation go along with it? My take: Because they have it all. The baby-boom generation gave way to the slacker Gen-Xers, followed by Gen-Y and now we've moved up the alphabet to Gen-G — for Guilty.

So many young adults today really do have everything: GPS smart phones so they're never lost and Facebook so they're never bored. Macrobiotic yogurt, photorealistic computer-generated movies and shelves filled with participation trophies. Gen-G has not yet contributed anything but still feasts from the cornucopia of technology plenty.

Instead, these young people "serve." Out of guilt? Facebook is filled with rationales: "I volunteer because: it is a way to show gratitude for what I have," wrote one teen. Another wrote: "I want to make the world a better, fairer place." DoSomething.org, a nonprofit aimed at getting teens to volunteer, surveyed 4,363 teenagers last year and found that 70% of children from wealthy families volunteered compared with 44% of kids from lower-income families.

My 16-year-old son volunteers with an organization that feeds the homeless and fills kits with personal-hygiene supplies for them. It's a worthwhile project, and I tell him so — but he doesn't like it when our conversation on the way to his minimum-wage job turns to why these homeless folks aren't also working. Perhaps, I suggest, because someone is feeding, clothing and, in effect, bathing them?

But there is a deeper question, rarely asked: Where does the money come from that funds all this Gen-G volunteering and charitable giving? Somewhere, somehow, someone worked productively and created wealth that could be given away (and tax deducted) to help the unfortunate.

Recently I attended a lunch for a "new kind of charity" — one structured like a startup, with equity and stock option gimmicks. The room was filled with successful entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. Afterward, I spoke with the young, energetic woman who ran the organization. She lamented to me that she could be running a real startup, but she chose a different path and was getting, as she put it, "pennies for heaven." I felt guilty about this, until I realized that she was actually taking productively earned dollars and converting them into her guilt-lifting pennies. By giving up a productive career, perhaps she is doing less for society than she thinks.

Don't mistake me for Scrooge. I'm all for charity and volunteering. And there are plenty of charities — the Acumen Fund and College Track come to mind — that should be praised for breaking the old-style "donate and give away" model. But these are the exceptions.

Given the massive wealth created in the U.S. economy over the past 30-plus years, it's understandable that the mantra of the guilty generation is sustainability and recycling. But obsessing over carbon footprints and LEED certifications and free-range strawberries and charging for plastic bags will not help the world nearly as much as good old-fashioned economic growth. Gen-G will wise up to the reality that the way to improve lives is to get to work. If Woodstockers figured this out, so will they — as soon as they get over their guilt.

Write an essay in which you explain how Andy Kessler builds an argument to persuade his audience that the current generation of children's participation in charity work as a drain on the economy.

参考范文

In observation of an increasing trend by an entire generation to participate in volunteer work, Andy Kessler argues in his Washington Post essay that the current generation of children's participation in charity work is a drain on the economy. He builds his argument through his use of an anecdote, statistics, and a rhetorical question.

Kessler begins his essay with a personal anecdote that strikes at the naivety of the parents who send their kids off to participate in service projects. He recounts the conversation with a couple at the airport who were picking up their children from Guatemala. To contrary to the parents' descriptions of a "wonderful volunteer experience" where their kids "really are improving lives," Kessler is able to show through a quick online search that the specific project was nothing more than an expensive excuse to travel and a buffer to students' eventual college application. He labels these programs as "volun-tourism" and proceeds to generalize for the readers an exceedingly negative picture of uninformed parents blindly spending large sums of money out of guilt. Kessler advises the readers to question the repeated wastefulness of several previous generations and how their wealth and overbearing nature are at the root of the problem.

Next Kessler gives the reader pause by identifying just the children who are pressured by their parents to engage in volunteer work. Most children (70%) from a survey of 4,363 teenagers come from wealthy families. Kessler employs this statistic to illustrate that while a staggering number of teenagers are volunteering, their participation is actually a luxury that comes with possessing the financial means. Their goals for volunteering, as taken from Facebook, stem not from a personal vendetta to do good but from a sense of guilt for what wealth they have. It is this lack of clear objectives combined with an easy life, with access to a "cornucopia of technology," that lead them to be out of touch with reality and to simply follow along with their parents' wishes. Kessler urges the readers to reevaluate the value of volunteering when the young participants engage in them without a clear agenda of their own.

Finally, Kessler seals his argument by asking a rhetorical question central to his argument: "Where does the money come from that funds all this Gen-G volunteering and charitable giving?" The point is made clearer when he proceeds to answer his own question: "Somewhere, somehow, someone worked productively and created wealth that could be given away." This strikes at the emotions of the readers as they are reminded of the fact that the younger generation is largely giving away wealth that they did not create themselves. The value of the thousands of dollars spent on these volun-tourism programs is lost on them when their parents have paid for everything. He cautions the readers to consider the larger picture of how the "donate and give away" model does little to contribute to "good old-fashioned economic growth" and that eventually Generation-G will figure that out.

Kessler stays central to his argument of the offense he finds in charity programs that give away wealth and provide little in return. He convinces his readers of his negative view on these projects and their participants through the use of an anecdote, statistics, and rhetorical question.

范文译文

面对年轻一代志愿者人数不断上升的趋势，安迪•科斯勒在其刊登于《华盛顿邮报》的文章中称，儿童参加志愿工作有损经济发展。他用个人轶事、数据以及设问等手法对此展开了论述。

科斯勒首先用一则个人轶事凸显了送孩子参加志愿项目的父母的无知。他回忆起在机场与一对前来接机的夫妻的对话，当时他们的孩子正从危地马拉回国。虽然这对夫妻称这是一段“绝佳的志愿经历”，孩子们得以“切实改善当地的生活”，但科斯勒通过上网稍加调查，发现该项目不过是一场昂贵旅行的借口和申请大学的缓冲。他把这些称为“志愿旅游”项目，并继续为读者描绘了一幅不知情的父母出于愧疚而为孩子砸钱的负面图景。科斯勒建议读者审视前几代人反复的浪费行为，以及这代人的财富和傲慢如何成为这一问题的根源。

接下来，科斯勒指出了那些在父母的压力下加入了志愿工作的孩子们，他的答案让读者陷入了思考。一项针对4363名青少年的调查表明，大多数（70%）孩子来自富裕家庭。科斯勒用数据说明，虽然青少年志愿者的数量惊人，但做志愿者实际是富有家庭才能享受的一种奢侈。Facebook显示，他们之所以参加志愿工作，并非出于行善助人的个人理想，而是出于拥有财富的愧疚。正是因为缺少明确目标、生活安逸、技术泛滥，年轻人才会与现实脱节，被父母的意愿牵着走。鉴于年轻人参与志愿项目时目的不明确，科斯勒敦促读者重新评估这类志愿服务的价值。

最后，科斯勒抛出了一个对其论证至关重要的设问，即：“资助年轻人志愿服务和慈善付出的资金来自何处？”他的回答让自己的论点愈加清晰：“来自某个地方辛勤地从事某种工作的某个人所创造的可供捐赠的财富。”这提醒读者，年轻人捐赠的财富几乎都是由别人创造的。父母在志愿旅游项目上投入的数千美元都失去了价值。他提醒读者思考，这种“捐款和赠送”模式在更大范围内对“良好传统的经济增长”没有任何贡献，并且这一代年轻人最终会想通这一点。

对于那些一味捐献财物、毫无收效的慈善项目，科斯勒立场坚定。他运用个人轶事、数据和设问等方式让读者认同他对这些项目及参与者的负面评价。

材料点评

这是一篇关于社会活动的文章，作者针对年轻人盲目参加志愿活动提出了自己的反对意见。作者分别使用了个人轶事、设问和数据调查等手法从多个角度论证了对一些志愿项目参与者的不支持。文章的措辞非常犀利，别具特色。

注释：志愿活动是每个高中生和大学生都会被鼓励参加的一些社会公益项目，但是这个过程中因为涉及申请学校等需求，很多志愿活动也被功利化和商业化了。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：结构清晰，全文连贯性强

文章表现出了出色的逻辑性和连贯性。逻辑性体现在明确的承上启下以及逻辑词的使用；连贯性体现在语义群的一致性。文章使用了大量的细节支持主旨，并且细节能够紧密围绕主题句展开。

Eg. Kessler begins his essay with….

Next Kessler gives the reader pause by….

Finally, Kessler seals his argument by….

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：透彻地解析每个特征

考生能够分别针对原文的每个主要特征进行深度的剖析，比如，在谈及使用个人轶事时，先指出这对夫妻认为这是“绝佳的志愿经历”，然后又说明作者揭露这不过是借口和缓冲，最后指出作者向读者描述的图景和建议。

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：用词得当，结构连贯

范文行文连贯，结构紧密，展现出了考生极高的语言掌握和运用能力以及优秀的写作能力。

主题：社会类

Theme: Society

How serious are we, really, about tackling income equality? The Securities and Exchange Commission took a shot at it last week, approving a rule that would require companies to disclose their C.E.O. pay gap — comparing how much chief executive officers take home compared with ordinary employees. That's a fine idea. But here's a better one: require companies to publish their gender pay gap.

Think about it. Calling out top executives for making too much money will at most embarrass a few suits. But calling out companies for paying women too little will help millions — and perhaps crack one of the most intractable problems of our time.

More than a half-century after President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the gap between what men and women earn has defied every effort to close it. And it can't be explained away as a statistical glitch, a function of women preferring lower-paying industries or choosing to take time off for kids.

Claudia Goldin, a labor economist at Harvard, has crunched the numbers and found that the gap persists for identical jobs, even after controlling for hours, education, race and age. Female doctors and surgeons, for example, earn 71 percent of what their male colleagues make, while female financial specialists are paid just 66 percent as much as comparable men. Other researchers have calculated that women one year out of college earn 6.6 percent less than men after controlling for occupation and hours, and that female M.B.A. graduates earn on average $4,600 less than their male classmates for their first jobs.

Women are trying mightily to close that chasm on their own. Linda Babcock, an economist at Carnegie Mellon and co-author of the book "Women Don't Ask," has found that one reason for the disparity is that men are four times more likely to ask for a raise than women are, and that when women do ask, we ask for 30 percent less. And so women are told we need to lean in, to demand to be paid what we're worth. It's excellent advice — except it isn't enough.

There is an antidote to the problem. Britain recently introduced a plan requiring companies with 250 employees or more to publicly report their own gender pay gap. It joins a handful of other countries, including Austria and Belgium, that have introduced similar rules. The disclosures "will cast sunlight on the discrepancies and create the pressure we need for change, driving women's wages up," Prime Minister David Cameron said last month.

Last year, the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers voluntarily released its gender pay gap in Britain. The analysis showed that most of its 15.1 percent pay disparity (compared with a Britain-wide gap of more than 19 percent) reflected a lack of women in senior jobs. So the firm focused on whether it was promoting fairly. In 2013, the grade just below partner was 30 percent female, yet only 16 percent of those promoted to partner were women. A year later, the percentage of women promoted to partner had more than doubled.

The potential cost savings of publishing the gender wage gap are enormous. About 20 percent of large companies now train employees to recognize unconscious bias, spending billions of dollars to try to stamp out unintentional discrimination. Paying for a salary analysis is cheaper and potentially more effective. Evidence also suggests that less secrecy about pay results in greater employee loyalty and lower turnover.

There's a strong argument to be made for transparency not just for women, but for minorities and other disadvantaged groups. African-American men earn less than white men, for example, though a Harvard Business Review analysis found that controlling for education, black men out-earn both white and black women.

Political realities being what they are, the chances of achieving that kind of transparency are slim; even the tepid C.E.O. pay gap rule took the S.E.C. five years to push through, in the face of fierce industry opposition. But why would we not want a measure that will settle the controversy over the pay gap with quantifiable facts? Shining some much-needed sunlight on the gender wage gap will make a difference for every one of us, men and women, right now.

Write an essay in which you explain how Joanne Lipman builds an argument to persuade her audience that gender pay gap is an increasingly prevalent issue that must be resolved through greater transparency.

参考范文

In the article "Let's Expose the Gender Pay Gap," Joanne Lipman makes the argument that gender pay gap is an increasingly prevalent issue that must be resolved through greater transparency. She builds her argument through the use of contrast, study data, and anecdotes.

Lipman employs contrast in her essay to illustrate the widespread occurrence of gender pay gaps. In reviewing a large data set from labor economics, Lipman utilizes two sets of parallel structures to physically capture how financial inequality between men and women is observed over and over again in the workplace. The repeated appearances of the phrases "percent" and "less than" create a resounding feeling, one that would resonate with the readers as Lipman uncovers this wage disparity. Lipman directs the readers to recognize that female professionals in the medical and financial fields are earning much less than their male counterparts "for identical jobs, even after controlling for hours, education, race and age." The study will stir in the readers into action as they realize the severity of the issue with gender pay gap existing among professions that require a higher education, where the actual amount in discrepancy is much higher. No longer is the discussion simply "a function of women preferring lower-paying industries."

The author then presents a study for why this is the case. From the book "Women Don't Ask," Lipman points out how the disparity is the result of "men are four times more likely to ask for a raise than women are." When women do ask, they also ask for 30% less. These figures are staggering and strike at the heart of the issue. The author directs the readers to this social phenomenon in order to make the case that other factors must be triggered in order to resolve the gender pay gap. In fact, she states that advising women to demand more is "excellent advice — except it isn't enough." Altering social behavior of one group of individuals achieves little when there aren't structures in place to accommodate this change. Instead, Lipman presents this study in order to make the case that external factors, like greater transparency, must be the force to bring out lasting and meaningful results.

Finally, Lipman makes use of various anecdotes to show how there has already been remarkable success with narrowing the gender pay gap through greater transparency. She provides evidence of national efforts by several European countries that require companies with 250 employees or more to publically report their employees' earnings. Lipman states how this public scrutiny created the pressure for companies to drive up the wages of their female employees. She also presents an individual example of PricewaterhouseCoopers's voluntary release of these figures that resulted in not only more equal pay, but a greater promotion of women to senior positions. Such successful stories contribute to the author's argument that other companies should follow this lead and also make public their data. Lipman argues that doing so will provide the social infrastructure for allowing women in the workforce to truly achieve equality.

Lipman defends her argument for defeating the gender pay gap by presenting the statistics on wage inequality even among highly paid professionals, a study on a social cause of the lower wages, and examples of successful transformations to convince the readers that there is much hope in truly eradicating the gender pay gap through greater transparency.

范文译文

在《揭露男女薪酬差距》一文中，乔安妮•利普曼称，男女同工不同酬的问题越来越普遍，必须通过提高透明度加以解决。她运用对比、数据分析、个人轶事等手法对其观点进行了论证。

利普曼在文中采用对比结构揭示了男女薪酬差距的普遍性。她对劳动经济学的一大组数据进行了研究，并将其分为两个平行的结构。读者可以直观地看到，工作场所普遍存在男女薪资不平等的问题。在揭露薪酬差距的过程中，作者反复使用“占比”“少于”等词语，起到强调的效果，使读者更加认同作者的发现。利普曼引导读者认识到，医学、金融领域的女性专业人员的收入比男性少很多，虽然他们从事的工种、工作时长、教育程度、种族、年龄都相同。一旦读者意识到，在对教育程度要求高的职业中也存在严重的薪酬差距，而且实际差距甚至更大，那么报告就能促使读者采取行动。关于薪酬差距的讨论也不再仅仅是“选择在低收入产业工作的女性活动”了。

接下来，作者探究了差距产生的原因。利普曼指出，《女性不主动》一书中提到，差距的原因在于男性主动要求加薪的可能性是女性的四倍。即使女性要求涨工资，她们要求的也比男性少30%。这些数据令人吃惊，道出了问题的症结所在。作者引导读者关注这一社会现象，希望他们能够明白，消除男女薪酬差距势必牵扯其他因素。实际上，她认为建议女性要求加薪是“绝佳的建议——但这并不够”。仅仅改变一个群体的社会行为，但不建立与之适应的社会结构，必将收效甚微。所以利普曼通过展示其研究成果，呼吁利用外部因素，如增加透明度来取得持久的、有意义的结果。

最后，利普曼用几个实例表明，通过提升透明度减少男女薪酬差距已经取得了显著效果。她证明，有一些欧洲国家从国家层面上做出了努力，要求规模在250人以上的公司报告员工的收入情况。她认为这种公共监督带来的压力可以促使企业提高其女性雇员的工资。她还写到了一个特例，即普华永道会计事务所自愿公开这些数据，这不仅带来了同工同酬，还使更多女性能够获得升职，最终担任高级职位。这些成功的故事支撑了作者的观点，即其他公司应该加入这一行列，公开其工资情况。利普曼称，此举将为职场女性真正实现平等提供必要的社会条件。

利普曼通过展示高收入行业的薪酬差距数据、有关工资差距社会成因的研究，以及成功缩小差距的实例来说服读者——提高透明度这一方法在消除男女薪酬差距方面潜力巨大。

材料点评

这是一篇社会与人权方面的文章。作者针对男女薪酬的差异向读者说明了提高薪酬透明度的必要性。文章以设问句开篇，引发读者关于男女同工不同酬这一社会问题的思考。最有特色的是作者通过使用对比论证，向读者展示了男女薪酬的差异，并进一步分析了原因。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：结构严谨，细节充分

考生通过熟练的间接引用——转述技巧（paraphrases）和直接引用技巧（direct quotations）展现出了对阅读材料的充分理解。考生能够从阅读材料中找寻证据说明作者如何支持主旨，比如，提及作者用对比论证和统计数据来展示男女薪酬的差异。考生并未直接引用大段的原文，而是用自己简洁精确的转述语言进行了分析。

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：深度解读每种特征

考生能够深度挖掘一种特征支持主旨以及说服读者的方式。比如，关于数据论据的使用，作者谈及这些论据可以给读者以直观感受，让读者直面现实问题。

Eg. These figures are staggering and strike at the heart of the issue. The author directs the readers to this social phenomenon in order to make the case that other factors must be triggered in order to resolve the gender pay gap.

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：句式多样

文章句式变换多样，且使用了很多高级的复杂句。

主题：社会类

Theme: Society

We have been tinkering with our food's DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms' genomes, turning a scraggly grass into plump-kerneled corn, for example. For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques — which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another — genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.

Many people argue for GMO labels in the name of increased consumer choice. On the contrary, such labels have limited people's options. In 1997, a time of growing opposition to GMOs in Europe, the E.U. began to require them. By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand. Major food producers such as Nestlé followed suit. Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.

Americans who oppose genetically modified foods would celebrate a similar exclusion. Everyone else would pay a price. Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods — and for a questionable return. Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400. The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the "naturalness" of their products.

Antagonism toward GMO foods also strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous benefits to people in developing countries and promises far more. Recently published data from a seven-year study of Indian farmers show that those growing a genetically modified crop increased their yield per acre by 24 percent and boosted profits by 50 percent. These farmers were able to buy more food — and food of greater nutritional value—for their families.

To curb vitamin A deficiency — which blinds as many as 500,000 children worldwide every year and kills half of them — researchers have engineered Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Approximately three quarters of a cup of Golden Rice provides the recommended daily amount of vitamin A; several tests have concluded that the product is safe. Yet Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations have used misinformation and hysteria to delay the introduction of Golden Rice to the Philippines, India and China.

At press time, GMO-label legislation is pending in at least 20 states. Such debates are about so much more than slapping ostensibly simple labels on our food to satisfy a segment of American consumers. Ultimately, we are deciding whether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology or shun it based on unfounded fears.

Write an essay in which you explain how the author builds an argument to persuade his audience that enforcing a labeling of GMO foods brings about several negative consequences to the future.

参考范文

This Scientific American commentary "Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea" argues that enforcing a labeling of GMO foods brings about several negative consequences to the future of food security. The argument is built upon established facts, statistics, and a historical example.

The author first makes the case for his argument by addressing the common facts about consumer behavior and choice. He begins by stating that "around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients" and how this penetration of GMOs in our diet isn't recent; Americans have been eating plants with modified genes for the past 20 years. However, this large diversity of foods doesn't exist in Europe because of the required labeling of GMO foods back in 1997, which resulted in many foods getting simply pulled off of shelves at supermarkets. The author points out that the concerns over the safety of GMO foods is unfounded, as international and domestic organizations have repeated proven that GMO foods are not toxic or allergenic. Instead, enforcing a mandatory label on GMOs would simply repeat what occurred in Europe, with consumers having much less choice in the foods they eat.

Next, the author uses statistics to show how labeling GMO would result in increased food prices. GMOs have lowered the cost of agricultural production because they require less water and pesticides to cultivate. Especially for developing countries like India, farmers are able to boost their "yield per acre by 24% and boosted profits by 50%" over a 7-year study. The author makes it clear that without this reduced cost to the farmers and manufacturers, the financial burden would ultimately trickle down to the consumers. The result can be an average of $400 increase to the typical family's annual food bill, a staggering amount. The author therefore makes a logical appeal to the readers' economic sensibility. The benefits of GMOs in the financial sense are straightforward as farmers can raise a greater diversity of crops at a lower price and consumers save on their food spending.

Finally, the author touches on the loss of nutritional value from a lack of GMOs. This role of Golden Rice in curbing vitamin A deficiency, which "blinds as many as 500,000 children worldwide every year and kills half of them," strikes a deep emotional chord with the readers. The author makes a strong case here for how a food was intentionally modified to solve a worldwide health crisis. Not one reader would wish upon the deformity or death of young child and anyone even unfamiliar with the example would be swayed to see the value in GMO foods. The author further adds that anti-GMO organizations in the past successfully delayed the information of Golden Rice to Asia. The readers will therefore be made to think twice before they take actions that would contribute to the similar devastating result of affecting the life and death of so many individuals.

The author of this Scientific American essay succeeds in presenting an argument against enforcing legislation on the labeling of GMO foods. He does so through the use of facts on consumer behavior, statistics, and a historical example.

范文译文

《科学美国人》杂志的评论文章《给转基因食品贴标签是个馊主意》称，强行给转基因食品贴标签会带来一些负面后果，威胁食品安全。文章使用事实、数据和例子进行了论证。

为支持其论点，作者首先列出了关于消费者行为和选择的一般事实。他首先指出，“美国70%的加工食品含有转基因成分”，而且这一现象由来已久。在过去二十年中，美国人一直都在食用转基因植物。但是，由于欧洲从1997年开始要求标注转基因食品，致使超市里很多转基因食品下架，食品选择上的多样性在欧洲已不复存在。作者还指出，对转基因食品安全的忧虑缺乏根据。国际和国内的相关组织已经反复证明转基因食品没有毒性，且不含过敏源。相反，强制对转基因食品贴标签只会重蹈欧洲的覆辙，减少消费者在食品上的选择。

接着，作者用数据证明，给转基因食品贴标签会推高食品价格。转基因食品所需的水和农药更少，从而降低了农业生产的成本。一项为期7年的研究显示，特别是在印度这样的发展中国家，转基因作物能够让农民“增产24%，增收50%。”由此读者可以清楚地看到，如果转基因食品给农民和制造商带来的低成本不复存在，那么随之而来的经济负担终将转嫁到消费者身上。结果就是，对于每一个典型的家庭而言，每年的食品开支将增加400美元，这是个相当惊人的数字。作者利用这些数据从理性上唤起了读者的共鸣。转基因食品带来的经济利益显而易见：一方面，农民得以用更低的成本种植更多品类的作物；另一方面，消费者得以节省食品开支。

最后，作者谈到缺少转基因食物造成了营养价值的缺失。世界上每年有50万儿童因缺乏维生素A失明，其中一半甚至因此失去生命，而转基因的黄金大米能够缓解维生素A缺乏症。这个例子深深打动了读者。作者对为解决全球健康危机而有意培育转基因食品的做法表达了强烈的支持。没有人愿意看到孩子残疾或死亡，即使以前不熟悉这个例子的人也会被打动，从而认可转基因食品的价值。作者进一步补充，过去反对转基因食品的组织成功地拖延了有关黄金大米的信息进入亚洲的时间。这些事例使得读者在做出有关转基因食品的决定时会三思而后行，因为这些决定可能对很多人的生死产生类似的重大影响。

《科学美国人》杂志的这篇文章成功地阐述了作者为何反对要求转基因食品贴标签的立法。作者通过有关消费者行为的事实、数据和历史事例对此进行了论述。

材料点评

这是一篇食品定价方面的社会类阅读材料。作者表达了自己对给转基因食品贴标签的立法的反对。在第一段中，作者回顾了美国历史上对转基因食品的使用，第二段中作者利用专家机构的权威调查证明了转基因食品无害，从而可以更有力度地引出对贴标签立法的反对，然后提出了一些事实论据。这篇文章还有一个最大的特色就是事例和数据的使用，这些手法的使用使得文章具有很强的说服力。

注释：通过基因工程技术将一种或几种外源性基因转移到某种特定的生物体中，并使其有效地表达出相应的产物（多肽或蛋白质），此过程叫转基因。以转基因生物为原料加工生产的食品就是转基因食品。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：细节的使用

考生能够直接引用或转述阅读材料中的主要细节支持主题句。比如在谈及作者对事实论据的使用时，考生直接引用了部分原文重要信息，并转述了部分信息支持自己的主题句。

Eg. He begins by stating that "around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients" and how this penetration of GMOs in our diet isn't recent; Americans have been eating plants with modified genes for the past 20 years.

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：透彻的分析

考生能够找出原文的主要特征并针对每项特征进行深入分析。尤其在第四段中分析事例论据的使用和效果时，考生展现出了很强的分析逻辑，先指出论据跟主旨的密切关系，之后，又进一步分析了论据对读者的效果。

Eg. Not one reader would wish upon the deformity or death of young child and anyone even unfamiliar with the example would be swayed to see the value in GMO foods.

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：结构完整，递进清晰

这篇文章行文连贯，结构紧密，考生展现出了极高的语言掌握和运用能力。文章有清晰明确的主旨，篇章的主体段紧密围绕着三个主要特征进行了结构展开，每一段的内部观点递进也清晰严谨。

主题：政治演讲类

Theme: Political Speech

Adapted from Barack Obama, "A More Perfect Union." The speech was delivered at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA on March 18, 2008.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union." Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars, statesmen and patriots who had traveled across the ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their Declaration of Independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed, but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations. Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution —a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part — through protests and struggles, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience, and always at great risk — to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this presidential campaign: to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring, and more prosperous America. I chose to run for President at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction: towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren. And this belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own story.

I'm the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's army during World War II, and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and I've lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners, an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, and cousins of every race and every hue scattered across three continents. And for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible. It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional of candidates. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.

Write an essay in which you explain how President Obama builds an argument to persuade his audience that America strives to be a more just and perfect nation.

参考范文

In his speech, Obama argues that America strives to be a more just and perfect nation. He does so through the use of allusions to historical documents, common sense, and anecdotes.

He first alludes to historical documents that were important to the founding of the United States. He quotes from the Declaration of Independence at the start of the essay as a powerful reminder of the struggles taken by early colonists to advance their ideals of individual liberty. Yet while this document sought to severe ties between the colonists and the tyrannical King they endured in Great Britain, it took many more decades until the Constitution was written for the concept of equal citizenship to manifest as law. Obama makes reference to the founding documents as a means of bringing to focus the fact that the United States has been dealing with the concepts of rights and equality since its inception. The fact that these ideals are still discussed today means that the country is in a constant flux of change and improvement. As the Constitution shows, each successive document brought about positive additions to the nation.

He then states how it is the duty of each generation to do their part in this continuous reform. He argues that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States." Here Obama clinches to the common sense of the average American and summons them to take action. He wants them to take ownership of the country's founding ideals and "narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time." He appeals to the emotions of the readers by reminding them that all of us as Americans have common hopes and goals. He challenges them to do this not just for themselves, but for "a better future for [their] children and grandchildren." Praising the readers is particularly effective tool, and Obama concludes that he possesses an "unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people." Surely the readers of this speech would feel a moral obligation to take on more responsibility in order to justify the positive moral qualities that Obama has instilled on the American people.

Finally, Obama recounts his own anecdotes to provide a personal touch to his ideals and hopes for this nation. He describes himself as the unique descendant of a biracial marriage who has thrived within the American system and received educational and career opportunities that no other country could offer. He emphasizes that the United States is a melting-pot that brings together different ethnicities and "out of many, we are truly one." His narrative of his own past, present, and future mirrors the elements illustrated in his earlier points on the founding documents and the duty of each generation. His unconventional background and that of his daughters moves the readers to realize that success in America does not require one to fit into any specific mold. Instead, he argues that it is the "understanding that we may have different stories" that allows the citizens of this nation to thrive in our individual ways.

Through the use of allusion, common sense, and anecdotes, Obama creates a cohesive argument for how America maintains on the path toward becoming a more perfect nation.

范文译文

在演讲中，奥巴马利用历史文献、常识以及事例，证明美国一直力争成为一个更加公平和完美的国家。

他首先提到了几份对美国建国发挥了重要作用的历史文件。在文章开头，他引用《独立宣言》提醒读者，早期殖民者为实践个人自由的理想进行了艰苦奋斗。虽然殖民者的初衷是通过这份文件宣布与英国暴君一刀两断，但直到几十年后，平等公民权利才随着《宪法》的颁布获得法律地位。奥巴马引用建国文件向读者证明，美国自成立之日起就一直在关注并推动权利与平等。这些理念今天仍受热议，说明美国在不断改变、不断进步。正如《宪法》所展示的，每一份新文件都给国家增添了正能量。

接下来，他指出每一代人都有义务尽其所能延续这场改革。他说道，“羊皮纸上的文字不足以解放奴隶，也不足以确保所有男女——不论肤色和信仰——享有他们作为美国公民的权利、承担作为美国公民的义务。”他诉诸于美国人的常识，动员他们采取行动。他希望他们将建国理想视为己任，“缩小我们理想的前景与所处时代现实之间的距离。”他提醒读者，作为美国人，他们有共同的目标和希望，借此引起读者感情上的共鸣。他激发读者这样做不仅是为了自己，更是为了子孙后代。赞美读者是一种有效手段。奥巴马在结尾时说，他“对美国人民的高尚品德和慷慨大度深信不疑。” 如此一来，读者自然会感到一种道德义务，意识到有必要承担更多责任，这样才对得起奥巴马对美国人民道德品质的赞扬。

最后，奥巴马结合亲身经历阐述了他对国家的理想和期望，为文章注入了个人色彩。他称自己是独特的跨种族婚姻的后代，他在美国制度下顺利成长，获得了其他国家无法提供的教育及工作机会。他强调，美国是一个大熔炉，它聚集了各个民族的人，“各不相同，实则一心”。他的过去、现在和未来呼应了上文中关于建国文件和每代人职责的观点。他和女儿的特殊背景让读者认可：在美国，成功没有必须遵守的固定模式。相反，他指出，正是“认识到我们可能有不同的故事”，美国公民才得以用自己的方式取得成功。

奥巴马通过引经据典、常识以及个人经历展开了连贯的论述，证明美国仍朝着建设完美国家的方向在前进。

材料点评

这是一篇社会与国情方面的演讲稿。在演讲的开篇，美国前总统奥巴马追溯了美国历史上的一些著名文献，从而自然过渡到每个公民都有延续这场改革的责任。在演讲稿中，奥巴马诉诸于情感与道德，唤起了听众对美国政府的信任以及听众个人的责任心。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：证据充分

考生先用简洁的语言概括了这篇演讲稿的主旨，然后从材料中找寻证据来说明作者如何支持主旨，比如，提及奥巴马用历史典故来开篇以及奥巴马对个人经历这一论据的使用。考生并未直接引用大段的原文，而是用自己简洁精确的转述语言进行了分析。

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：分析逻辑性强

考生认真全面地解释了奥巴马如何通过使用历史典故、个人经历、道德诉求等方法来展开他的议论。例如，考生分析了奥巴马为何采用历史典故这一手段进行开篇，并描述了这一方法对读者产生的整体效果。考生能够用有说服力的逻辑链从手段的功能性和读者效果性两个方面，全面解读奥巴马采用历史典故这一方式开篇的作用。

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：结构严谨

篇章的主体段紧密围绕着阅读材料的三个主体部分进行了结构展开。每一段的段落内部观点递进也清晰严谨。开头段和结尾段的写作技巧纯熟，并很好地概括了全篇的主旨及结构分析。

主题：环境类

Theme: Environment

A century ago an iconic, keystone species — the gray wolf — all but vanished from the continental U.S.. Its loss was no accident. Rather it was the result of an eradication campaign mounted by ranchers and the government to protect livestock. Hunters shot, trapped or poisoned the wolves and received a bounty for each kill. Not even the national parks, such as Yellowstone, offered safe haven. Within decades the apex predator was nearly gone, a decline that triggered a cascade of changes down the food chain.

Today, however, in the 28,000-square-mile wilderness of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 400 gray wolves roam free. The Yellowstone wolves are among the 6,000 or so gray wolves that now inhabit the lower 48 states thanks to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The act was signed into law in 1973 to protect endangered and threatened plants and animals, as well as the habitats critical to their survival. The ESA has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the 2,000 listed species. It is widely considered the strongest piece of conservation legislation ever implemented in the U.S. and perhaps the world.

Yet for years the ESA has endured attacks from politicians who charge that it is economically damaging and ineffectual. Opponents argue that environmental groups use the legislation to file frivolous lawsuits aimed at blocking development. Moreover, they contend that the ESA fails to aid species' recovery. As evidence, they note that only 1 percent of the species that have landed on the protected list have recovered to the point where they could be delisted.

The latest assault comes in the form of the Endangered Species Management Self-Determination Act, a bill introduced by senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Dean Heller of Nevada and Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada. The bill would, among other things, require state and congressional approval to add new species to the protected list — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service do this now, based on the best scientific data available. It would also automatically delist species after five years and allow governors to decide if and how their states follow ESA regulations.

Senator Paul and others advocating for reform say that they want to improve the law to better serve imperiled species and local people. But their arguments are flawed. The reason why few species have recovered to the point where they can be delisted is not because the ESA is ineffective but because species take decades to rebound. In fact, 90 percent of the listed species are on track to meet their recovery goals.

Yet the flaws of this bill do not mean the ESA cannot be improved on. For example, Congress should help the private landowners who choose to act as stewards of their land. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, about half of ESA-listed species have at least 80 percent of their habitat on private lands. Yet landowners have few incentives to preserve the habitats of threatened species. More financial and technical assistance needs to be made available to landowners who want to help protect the species on their property, as well as to people such as ranchers whose herds may be affected by the return of a species like the gray wolf.

Perhaps most important, conservation efforts must be updated to reflect what scientists now know about climate change and the threats it poses to wildlife. As temperatures rise, many more species will fall on hard times. Policy makers should thus increase ESA funding to allow more rigorous monitoring of wildlife and to protect more species.

Against the backdrop of budget cuts, setting aside more money to save animals and plants might seem like a luxury. Nothing could be further from the truth. Healthy ecosystems provide a wealth of essential services to humans — from purifying water to supplying food. We must preserve them for our own well-being and that of future generations.

Write an essay in which you explain how the author builds an argument to persuade his audience that Endangered Species Act (ESA) should be maintained.

参考范文

In the Scientific American article "Protect the Endangered Species Act," the author is wary of attacks against the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and argues for the maintenance of this bill. He supports his argument by utilizing a wildlife example, statistics, and scientific facts.

The article begins with an extended example of the gray wolf, which came close to extinction just a century ago in the United States. The author states how even the Yellowstone National Park could not protect this species as no laws were in place to protect the mass hunting. The establishment of the ESA in 1973 has since allowed the population to recover to the thousands. The author appeals to the readers' emotions here by using an animal that has an iconic status among species of North America. He also makes an appeal to the logos by stating that the wolf is "the apex predator." Readers familiar with ecology will quickly make the association that the extinction of an animal at the top of a food chain will disrupt the natural balance and affect every animal within that chain. The survival of gray wolves is therefore vitally important for preservation of many other species that are part of its habitat.

The author touches on statistics that bring out the clear value of ESA. Since its establishment, the "ESA has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the 2,000 listed species." In addition, "90 percent of the listed species are on track to meet their recovery goals." The author does concede that species sometimes take decades to fully recover and this is something beyond the control of the bill. However, the author has already impressed the readers with statistics that provide plenty of support for how ESA has demonstrated value. Preserving a species from extinction is no easy feat, and readers will unlikely miss the fact that achieving close to a 100% record for over thousands of species is quite extraordinary for a bill that has been in effect for so many years. Surely the effectiveness of this legislation in prompting the actions of environmental agencies to achieve such stellar record cannot be underestimated.

Finally, the author makes specific recommendations on areas where the bill can improve. He first suggests that "Congress should help the private landowners who choose to act as stewards of their land," as a great number of ESA-listed species "have at least 80 percent of their habitat on private lands." Next he argues that policy makers should increase ESA funding, as conservation efforts must take into account the important aspect of climate change. Each of the author's recommendation is supported by scientific facts that pinpoint the specific areas. The author builds to his argument by acknowledging the areas in which ESA is insufficient by addresses each point with a solution. He builds credibility with the readers by taking a step back from defending the bill and objectively assessing its flaws.

The author of the Scientific American article makes a convincing argument for the merits of preserving the Endangered Species Act. He has done so by utilizing a wildlife example, statistics, and scientific facts.

范文译文

在《科学美国人》的刊文《保护濒危物种法案》中，作者十分警惕对于《濒危物种法案》（ESA）的攻击，并支持保有这一法案。他利用野生动物的例子、统计数据和科学事实支持了自己的论证。

文章开篇用了很长的篇幅讲述灰狼的例子，一个世纪以前该物种在美国处于濒临灭绝的状态。作者讲到，因为没有法律限制大规模猎杀，以致连黄石国家公园都不能保护这一物种。但是，自从1973年《濒危物种法案》实施后，灰狼的数量又重新恢复到了几千头。作者通过使用灰狼这一北美标志性的物种，唤起了读者的感情。另外，作者也诉诸于逻辑，提到灰狼是“顶级掠食者”。熟悉生态学的读者肯定会想到，位于食物链顶端的物种灭绝会打破自然平衡，影响食物链中的每一个物种。因此，灰狼的存活对于保护它所在栖息地的许多其他物种都是至关重要的。

作者还用了统计数据，清晰地展示了《濒危物种法案》的价值所在。自法案设立以来，“ESA清单上的2000个物种中，有99%都免于灭绝”。此外，“90%的物种已经在逐步达成恢复规模的目标”。作者当然也承认，有时候物种需要用几十年的时间才能完全恢复到以前的规模，这是法案难以控制的。然而，作者的这些统计数据已经让读者印象深刻，充分论证了《濒危物种法案》的价值。使物种免于灭绝并非易事。读者肯定会注意到，在法案实施的这些年中，使数千个物种保持近乎100%的存活率是多么了不起的一件事。能够使环保机构行动起来，取得如此辉煌的成就，该立法的有效性是不容低估的。

最后，作者提供了一些具体的建议，指出法案可以在哪些领域进一步完善。他首先建议“国会应该帮助那些管理自己土地的私人土地所有者”，因为“在ESA清单上的大部分物种，其栖息地至少有80%都在私人土地上。”之后他又提出，政策制定者应该增加对ESA的资金支持，因为物种保护还需要考虑到气候变化所带来的重要影响。作者的建议都有科学事实的支持，明确地指向了特定的领域。作者还进一步论证，承认了ESA在某些领域的不足，并提供了解决方案。作者并未一味地去维护法案，而是退后一步，转而客观地评估法案的缺陷，使其在读者眼中的公信力得以提升。

《科学美国人》上这篇刊文的作者对于保护《濒危物种法案》的好处进行了非常令人信服的论证。他采用了野生动物的例子、统计数据和科学事实来佐证自己的观点。

材料点评

这是一篇环境保护方面的文章。针对一些关于《濒危物种法案》的攻击，作者通过强有力的论证肯定了该法案的重要价值。这篇文章采用了非常有特色的“倒金字塔体式”结构，开篇先讲到灰狼这一濒危物种在立法后数量增加的一个小事例，然后再由小到大给出自己的观点。本文还有一个主要特色，就是运用了让步式论证，客观评价了法案的缺陷，从而让论证更加有说服力。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：细节充分

考生能够清晰而有条理地说明作者如何使用细节支持了主旨，比如，提及作者开篇用具体事例诉诸于情感，以及如何用统计数据诉诸于逻辑。考生并未直接引用大段的原文，而是用自己简洁精确的转述语言进行了分析。

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：论据解析透彻

考生全面透彻地分析了作者如何通过使用事例、事实和数据等方法来展开他的议论。例如，考生分析了作者采用具体事例开篇对读者产生的整体效果，还解释了作者如何通过让步论证这一方法让自己的观点更加具有说服力。

Eg. The author appeals to the readers' emotions here by using an animal that has an iconic status among species of North America. He also makes an appeal to the logos by stating that the wolf is "the apex predator." Readers familiar with ecology will quickly make the association that the extinction of an animal at the top of a food chain will disrupt the natural balance and affect every animal within that chain.

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：用词准确

全篇用词准确，措辞得当。文章句式变换多样，且使用了很多高级的复杂句。

主题：商业类

Theme: Business

It is not hard to find evidence of the success of the "sharing economy", in which people rent beds, cars and other underused assets directly from each other, coordinated via the internet. One pointer is the burgeoning of demand and supply. Airbnb, founded in San Francisco in 2008, claims that 11m people have used its website to find a place to stay. Lyft, a company that matches people needing rides and drivers wanting a few dollars, has spread from San Francisco to 30-odd American cities. Another sign is the frothy values bestowed on sharing-economy companies: Airbnb is reckoned to be worth $10 billion, more than hotel chains such as Hyatt and Wyndham, and Lyft recently raised $250m from venture capitalists. But perhaps the most flattering — and least welcome — indicator of the sharing economy's rise is the energy being devoted by governments, courts and competitors to thwarting it.

The main battlegrounds are the taxi and room-rental businesses. A court in Brussels has told Uber, another San Francisco ride-sharing and taxi-services startup, to stop operating in the city. In March Seattle's council capped the number of ride-share drivers on the road at 150 per company at a time — though this is now on hold, thanks to a petition backed by the companies. Other cities have banned their services outright, or tried other ways of putting spokes in their wheels. Meanwhile the Hotel Association of New York has been lobbying for stricter enforcement of a rule that bans absent owners from letting their apartments for less than 30 days, which makes most of Airbnb's listings there illegal.

The newcomers' opponents, whether competitors, officials or worried citizens, complain that the likes of Airbnb and Lyft dodge the rules and taxes that apply to conventional businesses. Regulations exist to keep hotel rooms and kitchens clean and fire alarms in working order, to stop residential areas being pocked with unlicensed hotels, and to see that cabbies are insured, checked for criminality and tested on their knowledge of the streets. Cowboys such as Airbnb, Lyft and Uber, their critics claim, are a danger to an unsuspecting public. Look no further than the reports of parties in Airbnb lets or of accidents — in one of which a six-year-old girl was killed — involving ride-sharing drivers.

The objectors have half a point. Taxes must be paid: a property-owner who rents a room should declare the income, just as a hotel should. Safety is also a concern: people want some assurance that once they bed down for the night or get into a stranger's car they will not be attacked or ripped off. Zoning and planning are also an issue: peace-loving citizens may well object if the house next door becomes a hotel.

Sharing-economy firms are trying to mitigate these problems. They have tightened insurance cover for their drivers and have offered to collect hotel taxes. They have an interest in their participants' good behaviour: as hosts, guests, drivers and passengers all rate each other online, their need to protect their reputation helps to maintain standards and keep people honest. But if consumers want to go for the cheaper, less-regulated service, they should be allowed to do so.

The truth is that most of the rules that the sharing economy is breaking have little to do with protecting the public. The opposition to Lyft and Uber is coming not from customers but from taxi companies, which understand that GPS makes detailed knowledge of the streets redundant and fear cheaper competition.

This all argues for adaptation, not prohibition. An unlikely pioneer is San Francisco, not usually regarded as a municipal model. Uber and Lyft got going in the city partly because taxis were hard to find, but the authorities have tolerated them. San Francisco bans rentals of less than 30 days, but is considering allowing people to let their residence, provided they live there most of the time, register with the city and pay its 14% hotel tax. Amsterdam and Hamburg have similar rules. The sharing economy is one of the great unforeseen benefits of the digital age. Cities should not ban it but welcome it.

Write an essay in which you explain how the author builds an argument to persuade his audience that companies like Uber and Airbnb are an integral part of economy and should be allowed to operate freely.

参考范文

In The Economist's "Remove the roadblocks," the writer argues that companies like Uber and Airbnb are an integral part of economy and should be allowed to operate freely. He supports this argument through the use of statistics, ethical reasoning, and examples.

The author begins the essay by introducing statistics on the impressive profitability of shared services. With the valuation of Airbnb estimated to be in the billions and millions being poured into Lyft by investors, the author makes an easy case for how these companies are a giant boost to the economy. Here the writer appeals to the readers' logical understanding of the free economy to emphasize the fact that we should cherish companies that contribute to the wealth of the nation. In addition, the author praises Airbnb for representing a new breed of companies that have surpassed established hotel chains like Hyatt and Wyndham. Through statistics, the author manages to convince the readers that the economic success of these new businesses is a clear sign for why they should continue to operate.

The author then appeals to the ethics of the readers by arguing that opposition to rideshare services have little to do with protecting the public. Instead, it has everything to do with thwarting healthy competition. The author explains how cities have unfairly banned shared services because of lobbying efforts from taxi companies and hotel associations. The author prompts the readers to question the ethics of whether established industries can justly stump competition since they are upset just because the new industries haven't had to deal with "taxes that apply to conventional businesses." He urges the readers instead to reach the conclusion that "this all argues for adaptation, not prohibition." Adaptation is a natural part of social evolution which prohibition has a historically negative connotation. Therefore, the author builds his argument that prohibiting innovative ride-share services would be detrimental to the economy.

Finally, the author offers examples of successful ways in which both cities and companies of the sharing economy have adapted to each other. Cities like San Francisco have adjusted their regulations to accommodate residents who wish to participate in Airbnb and treat their residence as a hotel property by enforcing a 14% hotel tax. Ride-sharing services have tightened the insurance coverage requirements so that there is a greater incentive among their drivers to be safer. The author also brings to the light the overall online rating system that is in place to promote good behavior and reputation among hosts, tenants, drivers, and passengers. Here the readers should be able to sympathize with how important their own online reputations are and recognize the stability of the system. The companies of the sharing economy may always be less-regulated than other establishments, but the author argues it is because of this that they have stayed competitive and highly demanded by consumers. He insists that they are "one of the great unforeseen benefits of the digital age" and that readers should take note if they wish to continue to have access to these services.

The companies of the sharing economy have been around for a while now but continue to face resistance from cities and lobbyist groups. The author makes his argument by using financial statistics, ethical reasoning, and examples to appeal to the readers' logos, ethos, and pathos.

范文译文

在《经济学人》的文章《清除路障》中，作者论证了自己的观点，即像优步和爱彼迎这样的公司是经济体的必要组成部分，是应该被允许自由运营的。作者利用统计数据、道义理由和实例等手法支持了自己的论证。

作者在文章开篇引入了一些统计数据，反映了这种共享服务惊人的盈利能力。作者谈到爱彼迎估计有数十亿计的投资金额流入Lyft公司，这很容易说明这样的公司对经济增长的巨大作用。这里作者其实是从自由经济的逻辑入手，向读者强调应该珍视那些为国家财富做出贡献的公司。此外，作者还赞美了爱彼迎，因为它代表了一种新型的公司形式，超越了诸如凯悦和温德姆这样的著名连锁酒店。通过统计数据，作者试图说服读者，这些新兴企业的经济成功清晰地表明了其继续运营的必要性。

作者还从道义的角度说服读者，认为反对共乘服务并不能保护公众利益，反而会遏制良性竞争。作者还说明，正是因为出租车公司和酒店协会的游说，市政府才不公正地禁止了这种共享服务。作者引导读者思考这样一个道义问题，即这些率先发展起来的行业是否有正当理由遏制竞争，它们其实仅仅是不忿于新兴行业可以免于缴纳所谓的“传统行业税”罢了。作者从而引导读者得出结论，即在这种情况下“应该做的是适应，而不是禁止”。适应是社会进步的自然组成部分，而禁止一直以来都带有贬义。因此，作者进一步论证了禁止这种创新型共乘服务会对经济造成危害的观点。

最后，作者提供了一些市政府和共享服务公司彼此适应的成功案例。比如，洛杉矶就调整了其制度，允许居民到爱彼迎留宿，但留宿时应按酒店留宿处理，并缴纳14%的酒店税。共乘服务公司也缩紧了其保险覆盖的要求，这样司机会更加注重安全驾驶。作者还介绍了线上评级系统的概况，该系统可帮助提升房主、租客、司机和乘客的表现和信誉。在此读者应该会有同感，深知线上信誉对他们的重要性，因此也就会认可这一系统的稳定性。从事共享经济的公司可能会比以往的行业受到更少的监管，但作者却认为正是这一点才使得这些公司有竞争力并为消费者所亟需。作者坚持认为这些公司是“数码时代未曾预见的巨大福利之一”，读者如果想继续享用它们提供的服务就应该注意了。

从事共享经济的公司已问世有些时日，但它们却仍然经受着来自市政府和游说集团的阻力。作者通过使用财务统计数据、道义理由和事例，从逻辑、道义和同理心的角度入手，向读者证明了自己的观点。

材料点评

这是一篇关于商业和公共服务方面的文章。作者在文中通过数据、事例等手法论证了自己的观点，即新兴的公共服务公司应该被允许自由运营。文章开篇先通过一些数据让读者了解了这些公司对经济的巨大贡献，进而从道义的角度告诉读者，我们应该适应与这些共享公司的良性竞争，而不是禁止。最后作者还给出了政府和共享服务公司彼此适应的实例，表达了对共享经济这一新兴形式的支持。

范文解析

阅读理解部分：

高分技巧：主旨明确，细节充分

范文用简洁的语言概括了主旨，并从材料文章中找寻证据说明了作者如何支持主旨，比如，提及作者用个人轶事来开篇以及提及这一历史典故的引用。考生并未直接引用大段的原文，而是用自己简洁精确的转述语言进行了全面解读，并能够清晰有条理地说明作者是如何使用细节来支持主旨的。

分析能力部分：

高分技巧：解析透彻

考生全面透彻地分析了作者如何通过使用数据、道义理由和事例等方法来展开他的议论。例如，考生分析了作者采用数据论据对读者产生的整体效果，还解释了作者如何通过诉诸于德这一方法让自己的观点更加具有说服力。

写作能力部分：

高分技巧：结构连贯，句式多样

这篇文章行文连贯，结构紧密，全篇用词准确，措辞得当，句式变换多样，且使用了很多高级的复杂句。

免责声明：以上内容源自网络，版权归原作者所有，如有侵犯您的原创版权请告知，我们将尽快删除相关内容。

我要反馈