托福作为一种测试非母语学生的考试，主要考查的是英语环境下的信息交流能力；而SAT考试作为主要针对英文为母语的中学生的考试，则更侧重于语言背后的深层含义和引申内容。基于这样的认识，这里给同学们的阅读策略是：先用3-4分钟的时间概括的读文章（这里称之为结构式阅读），以获得文章的大意和了解文章的结构为主要目的；之后再开始做题目，以每题45秒左右的时间来完成全部题目。在结构式阅读阶段，并不需要过于纠结于文章的细节信息和深层含义，因为同学们在做每个题目的时候，仍然要回到原文去精读题目相应的部分。两次阅读应该尽量减少重复，以保证整个阅读过程的效率最大化。
小说
This passage is excerpted from Herman Melville's “Redburn: His FirstVoyage”originallypublished in 1849. Itdescribesthe life of a young sailor during his first voyage across the Atlantic Ocean.
The order was given to loose the main-skysail, which is the fifth and highest sail from deck. It was a very small sail, and from the forecastle looked no bigger than a cambric pocket-handkerchief. But I have heard that some ships carrystill smaller sails, above the sail; called moon-sails, and skyscrapers, and cloud-rakers. But I shall not believe in them till I see them; a skysail seems high enough in all conscience; and the idea of anything higher than that, seems preposterous. Besides, it looks almost like tempting heaven,to brush the very firmament so, and almost put the eyes of the stars out; when a flaw of wind, too, might very soon take the conceit out of these cloud-defying cloud-rakers.
Now, when the order was passed to loose the skysail, an old Dutch sailor came up to me, and said, "Buttons, my boy,it's high time you be doing something; and it's boy's business, Buttons, to loose de royals, and not old men's business, like me. Now, d'ye see dat leelle fellow way up dare? dare, just behind dem stars dare: well, tumble up, now, Buttons, I zay, and looze him; way you go, Buttons."
All the rest joining in, and seeming unanimous in the opinion, that it was high time for me to be stirring myself, and doing boy's business, as they called it, I made no more ado, but jumped into the rigging. Up I went, not daring to look down, but keeping my eyes glued, as it were, to the shrouds, as I ascended.
It was a long road up those stairs, and I began to pant and breathe hard, before I was half way. But I kept at it till I got to the Jacob's Ladder; and they may well call it so, for it took me almost into the clouds; and at last, to my own amazement, I found myselfhanging on the skysail-yard, holding on might and main to the mast; and curling my feet round the rigging, as if they were another pair ofhands.
For a few moments I stood awe-stricken and mute. I could not see far out upon the ocean, owing to the darkness of thenight; and from my lofty perch, the sea looked like a great, black gulf, hemmed in, all round, by beetling black cliffs. I seemed all alone; treading the midnight clouds; and every second, expected to find myself falling—falling—falling, as I have felt when the nightmare has been on me.
I could but just perceive the ship below me, like a long narrow plank in the water; and it did not seem to belong at all to the yard, over which I was hanging. A gull, or some sort of sea-fowl, was flying round the truck over my head, within a few yards of my face; and it almost frightened me to hear it; it seemed so much like a spirit, at such a lofty and solitary height.
首先，无论哪种题材的文章，我们都要仔细读前面斜体字的简介部分（Italicized Introduction），这一部分会给出文章的内容范围或者文章的整体基调。对这一部分的阅读将为我们后续对文章的解读奠定良好的基础。
这篇小说节选的简介部分就把本文的范围明确的告诉给我们，让我们在开始阅读之前可以对文章有准确的预期。本文的内容就是关于“一个年轻水手第一次横渡大西洋的经历”。
关于文学类作品的结构式阅读首先要把握的是小说的三个要素：环境、人物和情节。
根据对大量SAT阅读文章在小说的分析，我们发现在这三个要素中，最容易出现的题目的是关于人物和情节的部分。环境描写部分涉及的题目数量较少，如果出题，难度也相对较低。注意我们的讨论仅仅是在SAT阅读的语境下展开的，宏观的理解小说作品，这三个要素当然同等重要、缺一不可。
而小说的情节则更是SAT阅读考试的重点，大部分的题目都与小说的情节发展过程相关，所以我们要对于情节部分进行更深入的了解。
如同中文小说的情节发展一般遵循“起承转合”的规律一样，英文小说也具备类似的情节展开过程：
对以上的五个环节分别加以解释：这里的Exposition指的是小说的情节的起点，也就是场景；（这里的exposition并不是“说明文”的含义）Rising Action指情节的发展；Climax就是情节的高潮；Falling Action指情节的转折；而Resolution则是指情节发展的尾声。这里用“解决”这个说法，体现出了小说创作的艺术性。指的是对于小说创造动机而言的解决。
在以上几个小说情节展开的环节中，高潮部分当然是最容易出现考题的点；除此之外，各个环节之间的过渡部分（transition）也是SAT阅读出题者比较关注和倾向的点，大家要格外重视。另外，同学们还要考虑到一点。由于SAT阅读文章多是原文的节选，以此可能在考试的节选文章中并不完整包含这五个环节，其中的某些环节会出于篇幅的原因而不体现出来。高潮部分作为小说的核心内容，自然不会缺少；而根据经验，SAT阅读中对小说的节选通常会保留高潮之前的部分，删减掉“转折”和“解决”部分的情况更可能出现。
通过例文我们可以看出，第一个段落就是对这个情节片段的场景给予介绍和展示；并对后文情节的展开进行铺垫。“Besides, it looks almost like tempting heaven,to brush the very firmament so, and almost put the eyes of the stars out; when a flaw of wind, too, might very soon take the conceit out of these cloud-defying cloud-rakers.”
第二个段落中，荷兰老水手的鼓动，推动着情节的发展。“Now, when the order was passed to loose the skysail, an old Dutch sailor came up to me, and said,…”
第三个段落中，伴随着一系列的心理活动，小说中的主人公展开了行动。主人公攀上绳索，向最高处的帆爬上去。“…I made no more ado, but jumped into the rigging.”
接下来的第四段,情节进一步发展，主人公爬到了顶层的帆上。至此，作为这部分的一个小的情节片段，高潮出现。“…and at last, to my own amazement, I found myselfhanging on the skysail-yard, holding on might and main to the mast; and curling my feet round the rigging, as if they were another pair ofhands.”
后面的两个段落主要是高潮出现后对主人公内心感受的心理描写。“I seemed all alone; treading the midnight clouds; and every second, expected to find myself falling—falling—falling, as I have felt when the nightmare has been on me.”，“I could but just perceive the ship below me, like a long narrow plank in the water; and it did not seem to belong at all to the yard, over which I was hanging.”
正如前文所说，小说在高潮之后的部分被省略掉，因此整个作为考试文章的小说片段至此便告一段落。
考虑到之前提到过的小说的三个要素。这个例子明显的偏重于情节部分的展开，人物相对简单（只有主人公和荷兰老水手），环境的描写也集中的体现在了第一个段落之中。这样，我们通过对环境、人物和情节，小说三个要素的把握，以及进一步对情节发展的几个阶段的理解，就完成了对这篇文学类文章的结构式阅读。
科学文
相比于小说，自然科学甚至包括社会科学以及其它议论文，核心其实都是观点。自然科学和社会科学中，对新的理论，观点，假说进行解释，之后通过相关的实验数据或者观察数据，支持观点。论述型文章中，作者通过各种方式对自己的主观观点进行解释和支持，让读者产生共鸣，说服读者支持自己的想法。所以，在新SAT的阅读中，这几类文章的题目集中考查文章的核心观点和分论点，论据（实验数据，现象例子等）如何支持论点，其它观点为何不正确等相关内容。所以，增加自己对文章中观点和要点进行快速提取，以及通过逻辑关系词，看懂论点和论据的之间关系对于理解文章非常重要。
需要注意的是，虽然SAT阅读中科学类的文章分为自然科学和社会科学两类，但这两类科学文章的论证展开过程是基本相似的。（在当前真实的学术语境下，社会科学也越来越多的借鉴和主动运用自然科学的理论和方法。）因此在这里，将这两类文章的结构式阅读方法放在一起解释。
科学类的议论文主要包含以下几个要素：
其中，issue指的是文章所要讨论的话题，即论题。在实际情况中，往往也有可能伴随着对研究背景和缘起的介绍；claim则是指作者本人在这个论题上所持有的观点，当然在这个阶段这个观点还未经过严密的推理论证过程，所以称为“主张”更为合适；support就是文章中的论据部分，论据是科学类论文的核心内容，当然也是SAT阅读考试的重要考查点；conclusion部分指的是经过了逻辑推理和论据支撑之后所得出的结论，通常是与之前作者提出的“主张”是相一致的。
如上所述，科学类文章的重点是论据部分，而SAT阅读所涉及的科学文章中，常见的论据构建方式有如下几种：
positive argument指的是能够起到支持作用的前人研究成果和观点。这个比较容易理解，在科研过程中，每一个观点的产生都要具备逻辑起点，也就是要做到每个观点都有相应的理论支撑。那么，前人已经得到公认的研究结果自然是最好的论据。
Evidence指的是各种实证的论据，比如实验结果、统计数据、具体事例、客观事实等。这些都是难以质疑的实证论据，能够对论点的建立带来强有力的支撑。
比较难以理解的是negative argument，也就是与作者意见相左的研究结论和观点。同学们在阅读的过程中，经常会被这一类的论据打乱思路。阅读基础差的同学甚至会受到影响而归纳出完全相反的文章主旨。这种敢于体现出反对观点的方法，体现出作者对自己研究结果有着充分的自信。作者提到反方观点，结合着让步策略的使用，更加能够强化作者的观点。在SAT阅读阶段，这种类型的论据是阅读的难点，同学们要格外给予关注。
下面就自然科学类的文章和社会科学类的文章各举一例，加以说明：
This passage is excerpted from Marcus Eriksen's "Plastic Pollution in theWorld's Oceans: MoreThan 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing Over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea," ©2014.
Plastic pollution is globally distributed across all oceans due to its properties ofbuoyancy and durability, and the absorption of toxicants by plastic while traveling through theenvironment has led some researchers to claim that syntheticpolymers in the ocean should be regarded as hazardous waste. Through photodegradation and other weathering processes, plastics fragment and disperse in the ocean, converging in the subtropical gyres.Accumulation of plastic pollution also occurs in closed bays, gulfs and seas surrounded by densely populated coastlines and watersheds.
Despite oceanographic model predictions of where debris might converge, estimates of regional and global abundance and weight of floating plastics have been limited to microplastics less than 5 mm. Using extensive published and new data, particularly from the Southern Hemisphere subtropical gyres and marine areas adjacent to populated regions corrected for wind-driven vertical mixing, we populated an oceanographic model of debris distribution to estimate global distribution and count and weight densities of plastic pollution in all sampled size classes.
Plastics of all sizes were found in all ocean regions, converging in accumulation zones in the subtropical gyres, including southern hemisphere gyres where coastal population density is much lower than in the northernhemisphere. While this shows that plastic pollution has spread throughout all the world's oceans, the comparison of size classes and weight relationships suggests that during fragmentation plastics are lost from the sea surface.
The observations that there is much less microplastic atthe sea surface than might be expected suggest that removal processes are at play. These include UV degradation, biodegradation, ingestion by organisms, decreased buoyancy due to fouling organisms, entrainment in settling detritus, and beaching. Fragmentation rates of already brittle microplastics may be very high, rapidly breaking small microplastics further down into ever smaller particles, making them unavailable for our nets (0.33 mm mesh opening). Many recent studies also demonstrate that many more organisms ingest small plastic particles than previously thought, either directly or indirectly, i.e. via their prey organisms.
这是一篇讨论海洋中的塑料废弃物的文章。首先，文章的开头给出了这个研究的缘起“Plastic pollution is globally distributed across all oceans due to its properties of buoyancy and durability, and the absorption of toxicants by plastic while traveling through theenvironment hasled some researchers to claim that syntheticpolymers in the ocean should be regarded as hazardous waste.”指出了本文的研究是在意识到海洋中的塑料废弃物是一种危害的背景下展开的。
接下来，作者明确的提出了本文的主张：即“Through photo degradation and other weathering processes, plastics fragment and disperse in the ocean, converging in the subtropical gyres.Accumulation of plastic pollution also occurs in closed bays, gulfs and sea ssurrounded by densely populated coastlines and watersheds.”
之后，作者在论据的运用上，先是使用了统计数据：“Using extensive published and new data,…”；然后又使用了客观事实作为论据：“While this shows that plastic pollution has spread throughout all the world's oceans,…”；之后还引用了能够支持自己观点的其它相关研究结果：“Many recent studies also demonstrate that many more organisms ingest small plastic particles than previously thought, either directly or indirectly, i.e. via their prey organisms.”
由于本文是从作者原文中选取、改编的一个段落，所以并没有明确的体现出结论的部分。我们可以认为，经过作者的逻辑分析过程和一系列论据的支持和作证，原文一开始提出的主张得到了证实。
This passage is excerpted fromJohn P. A. loannidis, "Scientific Research Needsan Overhaul,"©2014 by Scientific American.
Earlier this year a series of papers in The Lancet reported that 85 percent of the $265 billion spent each year on medical research is wasted. This is not because of fraud, although it is true that retractions are on the rise. Instead, it is because too often absolutely nothing happens after initial results of a study are published. No follow-up investigations ensue to replicate or expand on a discovery. No one uses the findings to build new technologies.
The problem is not just what happens after publication—scientists often have trouble choosing the right questions and properly designing studies to answer them. Too many neuroscience studies test too few subjects to arrive at firm conclusions. Researchers publish reports on hundreds of treatments for diseases that work in animal models but notin humans. Drug companies find themselves unable to reproduce promising drug targets published by the best academic institutions. The growing recognition that something has gone away in the laboratory has led to calls for, as one might guess, more research on research (aka,meta-research)—attempts to find protocols that ensure that peer-reviewed studies are, in fact, valid.
It will take a concerted effort by scientists and other stakeholders to fix this problem. We need to identify and correct system-level flaws that too often lead us astray. This is exactly the goal of a new center at Stanford University (the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford), which will seek to study research practices and how these can be optimized. It will examine the best means of designing research protocols and agendas to ensure that the results are not dead ends but rather that they pave a path forward.
The center will do so by exploring what are the best ways to make scientific investigation more reliable and efficient. For example, there is a lot of interest on collaborative team science, study registration, stronger study designs and statistical tools, and better peer review, along with making scientific data, analyses and protocols widely available so that others can replicate experiments, thereby fostering trust in the conclusions of those studies. Reproducing other scientists’ analyses or replicating their results has too often in the past been looked down on with a kind of “me-too” derision that would waste resources—but often they may help avoid false leads that would have been even more wasteful.
本文是一篇有关如何提高科研效率的文章。在文章开头，作者通过陈述一个惊人的事实，给出了所讨论话题的缘起：“Earlier this year a series of papers in The Lancet reported that 85 percent of the $265 billion spent each year on medical research is wasted. This is not because of fraud, although it is true that retractions are on the rise.”
然后作者提出了本文的主张，认为：“许多科研结果缺乏后续研究，导致大量的科研成果没能转化为实用的技术。”即：“Instead, it is because too often absolutely nothing happens after initial results of a study are published. No follow-up investigations ensue to replicate or expand on a discovery. No one uses the findings to build new technologies.”
之后，作者列举了一系列的事实来支撑自己的观点：“Too many neuroscience studies test too few subjects to arrive at firm conclusions. Researchers publish reports on hundreds of treatments for diseases that work in animal models but notin humans. Drug companies find themselves unable to reproduce promising drug targets published by the best academic institutions. The growing recognition that something has gone away in the laboratory has led to calls for, as one might guess, more research on research (aka,meta-research)—attempts to find protocols that ensure that peer-reviewed studies are, in fact, valid.”
下面作者又提到了权威机构所给出的解决方案。虽然本文并不是“问题-解决”式的文章，但提出具备可行性的解决方案，也有效的强化了作者观点的表达。因为，解决方案都已经摆到台面上了，那么更加说明这个问题的存在是毋庸置疑的。“Thisis exactly the goal of a new center at Stanford University (the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford), which will seek to study research practices and how these can be optimized.”
作者还举出了有针对性的例子作为论据来支持自己的观点：“For example, there is a lot of interest on collaborative team science, study registration, stronger study designs andstatistical tools, and better peer review, along with making scientific data, analyses and protocols widely available so that others can replicate experiments, thereby fostering trust in the conclusions of those studies.”
最后，作者结合整个分析过程，对开头提出的主张进行了充分的证实，得出了本文的结论：“Reproducing other scientists’ analyses or replicating their results has too often in the past been looked down on with a kind of “me-too” derision that would waste resources—but often they may help avoid false leads that would have been even more wasteful.”指出了“对科研成果的复制和检验并非仅仅是‘邯郸学步’，而具有相当的意义---能够避免那些会导致进一步浪费的错误。”
历史文献
建国文献是新SAT阅读考试中新增设的一部分内容。这一部分内容涉及到了有关美国历史和政治制度的一些背景知识。College Board一直以来坚持的所谓阅读内容无涉背景知识的原则在这部分中有所改变。虽然有关美国历史政治的背景知识在完成这部分阅读题目的过程中并非完全必须，但同学们如果能够掌握一定的相关知识，毫无疑问的会极大的提高解题速度和准确度。
对于在美国高中读书的同学们来说，学校都会有美国历史和政治常识的课程。只要在学校认真上课，就能够获得大部分的相关信息和知识。但对于广大在中国读高中的同学，则需要自己加强这方面的了解和学习。
由于这部分的阅读需要的是相关领域的背景知识，那么这种知识的获得渠道就显得没有那么重要。这里并不建议同学们去阅读大部头的美国历史英文著作，（这里的讨论仅限于新SAT备考的话题，从语言能力的加强和人文素养的培育角度来看，这类书籍当然是开卷有益的。）而更建议同学们从一些中文读物中获取这类的背景知识。而且并非一定要阅读大部头的专业书籍，反倒是网络上的一些相关领域的短小精悍、言之有物的文章更能够帮助同学们在短时间内大量的掌握相关知识。同学们大可以利用搜索和百科全书，采用发现式学习的方式，从网络上获取这些信息。与文明古国的数千年历史相比，美国历史显得格外短暂；但也正是因为这样，学习美国历史的过程中，有机会去发现历史人物身上和历史事件之中极为细节的部分，这也是一种学习和求知的乐趣。
例：
This passage is excerpted from Federalist Paper No. 5, published in 1787. In it, statesman John Jay discusses the potential effects of dividing the U.S. into several different nations.
The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them. Although it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an island should be but one nation, yet we find that they were for ages divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another. Notwithstanding their true interest with respect to the continental nations was really the same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those nations, their mutualjealousies were perpetually kept inflamed, and for a long series of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome than they were useful and assisting to each other.
Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen? Would not similarjealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being joined in affection" and free from all apprehension of different interests," envy andjealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits. Hence, like most other bordering nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them.
The most sanguine advocates for three or four confederacies cannot reasonably suppose that they would long remain exactly on an equal footing in point of strength, even if it was possible to form them so at first; but, admitting that to be practicable, yet what human contrivance can secure the continuance of such equality? Independent of those local circumstances which tend to beget and increase power in one part and to impede its progress in another, we must advert to the effects of that superior policy and good management which would probably distinguish the government of one above the rest, and by which their relative equality in strength and consideration would be destroyed. For it cannot be presumed that the same degree of sound policy, prudence,and foresight would uniformly be observed by each of these 40 confederacies for a long succession of years.
Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it would, that any one of these nations or confederacies should rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbors, that moment would 45 those neighbors behold her with envy and with fear. Both those passions would lead them to countenance, if not to promote, whatever might promise to diminish her importance; and would also restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. Much so time would not be necessary to enable her to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not only to lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is good-will and kind conduct 55 more speedily changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether expressed or implied.
The North is generally the region of strength, and many local circumstances render it probable that the most Northern of the proposed confederacies would, at a period not very 60 distant, be unquestionably more formidable than any of the others. No sooner would this become evident than the Northern Hive would excite the same ideas and sensations in the more southern parts of America which it formerly did in the southern parts of Europe. Nor does it appear to be a rash 6s conjecture that its young swarms might often be tempted to gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more delicate neighbors.
They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend jo that those in contemplation would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord,jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situations in which 75 some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., formidable only to each other.
通过这篇文章开头的介绍部分我们即可得知，本文节选自著名的美国建国文献《联邦党人文集》的第五篇，讨论的是将美国拆分成几个国家将会带来的潜在影响（对大部分同学而言，这个话题还是很开脑洞的。）我们在阅读这种类型文章的时候，就可以同时进行一些相关资料的搜集和积累。把每篇文章涉及到的历史背景知识都当做一个点，当这样的知识点有了相当程度的积累之后，就自然会形成对于美国历史的一种结构上的认识。同学们大可把这种知识的积累作为紧张的SAT备考过程中一种调剂和放松，这种知识不仅会成为阅读考试的助力，而且还会成为同学们日常生活中的谈资和bigger很高的讨论话题。
通过对这篇文章背景的考查，首先我们可以得知有关《联邦党人文集》的一些基本信息：
《联邦党人文集》在1788年首次出版了合集，书名为"联邦党人"(The Federalist)。《联邦党人文集》的作者由三个人组成，分别是詹姆斯·麦迪逊、亚历山大·汉密尔顿、约翰·杰伊。虽然关于具体每篇文章的作者尚有争议，但是可以肯定的是绝大多数的文章出自汉密尔顿之手。据道格拉斯.阿代尔的分析考证，汉密尔顿写了51篇，麦迪逊写了29篇，杰伊写了5篇。他们当时发表这些文章使用了普布利乌斯这个笔名，这个名字来源于他们所尊敬的古罗马执政官Publius Valerius Publicola。使用这个笔名大有深意。Publius活跃在约公元前500年前后，是挽救罗马共和国的英雄人物，地位相当于古希腊的立法者梭伦(Solon)。罗马人对他极为敬爱，尊其为"爱民者"(Publicola)。有人认为，汉密尔顿在以普布利乌斯之名写作之前，曾以"凯撒"这个笔名写过一系列的倡导宪法的文章，但这些文章遭到了冷遇，后来才转而使用普布利乌斯这个笔名，但施特劳斯否定了这个说法。凯撒和普布利乌斯都是强者，但是二者的角色却有天壤之别：凯撒毁灭了一个共和国，而普布利乌斯则拯救了一个共和国。
进一步的对这些与本篇文章的背景进行深入挖掘，还可以了解到几位作者的背景信息：
亚历山大·汉密尔顿(Alexander Hamilton，1757-1804年)，出生于英属西印度群岛，是一个英格兰贵族的弃子。1773年进入纽约的皇家学院(今哥伦比亚大学)，学习法律。美国独立战争期间曾担任华盛顿的军事秘书。1782年作为纽约州的代表参加大陆会议，1787年参加在美国费城举行的"制宪会议"(时年仅30岁)，主张建立强大的中央政府，他是美国联邦宪法的主要起草人之一，也是制定新宪法的最积极鼓吹者。汉密尔顿1789年担任华盛顿总统的财政部长，1795年退出内阁;1804年在与政敌共和党人伯尔的决斗中死去。
汉密尔顿的保守色彩和精英主义色彩比较浓，他崇尚国家实力，主张建立一个强有力的中央集权政府，以保证国家的秩序和利益。性恶论和等级论是他政治主张的理论基础。他对民主并不信任，认为人民是不可信的、不可靠的，应当让富人和出身名门的人突出地、永久地执掌政权。他早在青年时期就深受霍布斯著作的影响，认为"人性学"是一切科学中最有实用价值的科学。他推崇英国的君主立宪制度，并认为英国政府是世界上最好的政府。
詹姆斯·麦迪逊(James Madsion，1751-1836年)出生于美国弗吉尼亚大土地所有者家庭，是北美独立运动的主要领导人之一，被称为"宪法之父"。青年时期即投身于独立战争。1769年就读于新泽西学院(今普林斯顿大学)。曾参加弗吉尼亚革命代表会议，起草关于保障宗教信仰自由的文件。先后出席大陆会议和1787年的制宪会议。参加制宪会议时只有36岁，他提出了著名的"弗吉尼亚方案"，并使之成为制定联邦宪法的基本框架。在担任美国第1-2届众议院议员期间又通过极力争取，将10条权利法案以宪法修正案的方式写入宪法。1801年--1809年担任杰弗逊总统的国务卿。1808年--1816年担任美国第四任总统。1819年参与创立弗吉尼亚大学，并曾任该校校长。他担任总统期间曾领导进行第二次反英战争，保卫了美国的共和制度，为美国赢得彻底独立建立了功绩。麦迪逊慧眼独具，以第三人称保存了制宪会议的最完整的会议辩论记录，这本记录是研究美国宪法的必读书。
约翰·杰伊(John Jay，1745-1826年)是一个律师兼外交家。他出生在纽约的一个显赫家庭。他在家接受教育，后就读于皇家学院(今哥伦比亚大学)。四年后，他进入律师行业。杰伊是纽约在第一次和第二次大陆会议的代表。在1788年，杰伊被选为大陆会议的主席。杰伊是强大中央政府的强烈支持者。虽然他没有参加制宪会议，但他为《联邦党人文集》贡献出了五篇短文。杰伊拒绝了华盛顿的国务卿任命。杰伊接受了华盛顿的首任首席大法官的任命，而成为美国历史上的第一位联邦最高法院首席大法官。后被选为纽约州州长，他当即辞去了首席大法官的职务。1800年，约翰·亚当斯总统提名杰伊第二次担任首席大法官。这一提名很快被参议院所批准，但是杰伊以健康理由拒绝了这一任命，但实际原因是他认为最高法院缺乏"作为其对国家政府的正当支持的核心的能力、分量与尊严"。
进一步的去探寻与本文有关的信息，还可以发现本文作为《联邦党人文集》中的独立一篇，所讨论的话题也是充满了政治上的真知灼见的。这里把译文附上，同学们自己去体会美国的建国先贤们（founding fathers）在200多年以前所展现出的非凡的洞察力吧！
大不列颠的历史，一般说来是我们最熟悉的一部历史，它给予我们许多有益的教训。我们可以通过他们的经验得到教益，而不必付出他们所付的代价。这样一个岛国的人民应该是一个国家，虽然这对常识说来似乎是显而易见的事情，然而我们发现，他们长久以来分为三个国家，而且这三个国家几乎经常发生争吵和战争。虽然他们的实际利益同大陆国家的利益是真正一致的，然而由于那些国家的策略、政策和惯例，使他们之间的互相嫉妒一直处于加剧状态。多年来，他们彼此造成的不便和麻烦，远超过了彼此的互相帮助。
假如美国人民分为三、四个国家，难道不会发生同样的事情吗？难道同样的嫉妒不会发生，不会以同样方式存在吗？代替它们“友好联合”和“利益”一致的是，猜忌和嫉妒很快会使信任和友爱销声匿迹。它们的政策和所追求的唯一目的，将是每个邦联的局部利益，而不是整个美国的整体利益。因此，和其它大多数互相接壤的国家一样，它们不是经常卷入领土争夺和战争，就是经常生活于惟恐发生领土争夺和战争的状态之中。
最自信地主张有三四个邦联的人，也不能合理地推测它们在力量上会长期保持完全均等的地位，即使最初有可能使它们做到这一点；但是，即使这是可行的，那么人们又有什么办法继续保持这种均等状态呢？撇开那些能使一部分的权力增长而阻碍另一部分权力发展的局部条件不谈，我们必须想到一个政府在政策高超和善于管理方面，产生的效果可能比其它政府突出，因而破坏了它们之间在力量和重要性方面的相对均等状态。因为不能想象，这些邦联中的每一个成员在许多年内都能始终如一地遵守同样的健全政策，深谋远虑，居高望远。
不论何时，也不论由于何种原因，可能而且会发生这样的情况：这些国家或邦联中的任何一员，在政治重要性方面大大超过其邻国时，它的邻国就会对它采取猜忌和恐惧的态度。这两种感情都会使它的邻国支持，即使不是促进，任何能够降低其地位的行动，而且也会约束它们采取旨在增进、甚至保持其繁荣的各种措施。该国不需要很多时间就能够发现这些不友善的态度。它很快就会开始不仅对邻国失去信任，而且对它们怀有同样的恶感。怀疑自然会产生不信任，再没有什么东西比惹人憎恨的嫉妒和不正派的诋毁——不论是明显表示的或暗示的——会使诚意和善良的行为更快地改变了。
北方一般说是力量强大的地区，当地许多条件可能造成这样的情况：人们建议的邦联中最北面的一个，不要很长时间，无疑会比任何其它邦联更为强大。这个情形一经出现，北方蜂房立刻就会在美国的更南部激发起它以前在欧洲南部曾经激发起来的那些思想感情。这似乎也不是轻率的猜测：大群小蜜蜂往往受到引诱，到它们丰饶而又优美的邻国，在更加繁茂的田野和更为温暖的气候中去采蜜。
凡是仔细考虑诸如此类的分裂和邦联历史的人们，会发现许多理由来理解计划中的那些邦联决不是邻人，而是相互接壤的国家；它们既不会彼此相爱，也不会彼此信任，相反，它们会成为不和、嫉妒和互相侵害的牺牲品；简言之，它们会使我们真正处于某些国家毫无疑问希望看到我们所处的那种境地：就是说彼此只能成为劲敌。
这里很认真的提醒各位同学，这种信息发掘式的学习极易成瘾而无法自拔，从而占用大家大量的学习时间。希望各位同学（尤其是对历史人文知识兴趣浓厚的同学）千万克制这种信息发掘的力度，浅尝辄止即可，还是要专心备考SAT阅读。同学们能申请到越好的大学，就将会享有更好的图书馆服务，那时大家的求知欲将得到最大限度的满足。
全球对话
除了建国文献外，新SAT另外一个新增加的文章类型是全球对话（global conversation）。通过对真题，以及官方例题及各类模拟试题的归纳，通常这一类型的文章多是美国重要政治人物在某个重要历史时刻所进行的公开讲话的节选。大致总结可以发现，能够被选作SAT考试题目的文章，至少也要是美国州长或参议院以上级别的政治人物所进行的演讲，还包括美国近现代历史上具有重大社会影响的公众人物和社会活动家的讲话。演讲的话题通常都是有关自由、民主、平权、和平等受众广泛且政治正确的话题。新SAT阅读在这一部分的改变，与其说是对学生的英语阅读能力进行考查，还不如说是利用考试的机会对美国的传统价值观进行强化和维护。
在对演讲类文章进行结构式阅读时，同学们要着重把握住公众演讲的几个基本要素，这里把几个要素简化为“肥皂与石头”，即指在演讲类文章分析时采用的SOAP STONE原则。
这里有关演讲类文章的六个要素分别是：演讲者的身份、演讲的场合、演讲的听众、演讲的目的、演讲的主题和演讲者的语气。在新SAT考试中，同学们通过对文章前面的斜体字的介绍部分的阅读即可得知演讲者身份、场合和听众等有关演讲的基本信息；而对于演讲的目的、主题和语气则要通读全篇才能准确把握。
This passage is excerpted from President John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, given in 1961.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms ofhuman poverty and all forms ofhuman life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are stillat issue around the globe.
Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witnessor permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
And, if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor—not a new balance of power, but a new world of law—where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days.Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin...
本文是肯尼迪于1961年1月20日发表的著名的就职演说，当时正值60年代美苏两大阵营激烈对峙、进行冷战的年代，所以具有浓烈的政治色彩。就此，肯尼迪在演讲中也阐述了自己的政治倾向，表达了自己对自由的执着和和平的向往。演讲的言辞华美、气势恢宏，极富感染力，被奉为演讲中的经典之作。
通过文章之前介绍部分可以看出，演讲者是一位雄心勃勃、即将上任的总统。（当时的肯尼迪绝想不到他的总统生涯仅仅持续了两年多，便以遭到残忍的暗杀而告终。）；演讲的场合是在就职仪式上；听众是全体美国人民，乃至世界各国关心美国总统就职的人们。
进一步的对文章进行阅读，可以发现本文的目的（purpose）首先是对美国人民描述当时复杂多变的国际形势，并号召新一代的美国人民勇敢的面对和接受挑战：“Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans”；其次，对世界上的其它国家发出了宣言，表明了美国的立场和态度。尤其是对敌对国家，展现出了强硬的态度和坚强的决心：“remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”；最后，对美国和世界的未来进行了乐观的展望，同时也指出了美好未来的实现任重道远：“Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce….All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days.Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin...”
本文的主题（subject）涉及到了几个重要而且意义深远的话题：包括人权：“…and unwilling to witnessor permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.”；贫富差距：“ If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”；国际军事政治：“Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.”科学：“Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.”
从文体风格的角度上看，就职演说属于鼓动性的语言，演讲者常常借助词汇手段达到自己的鼓动效果。形容词就是这样一种有效手段。在肯尼迪的演讲中，使用了较多的形容词，且其中绝大多数都是表主观判断和感情色彩的词，如：different、hard、bitter、unwilling、strongly、foolishly、serious、precise等。此外，第一人称复数代词的使用在肯尼迪的演说中也颇具特色。他的演讲中，使用得最多的是第一人称代词，尤其是第一人称复数代词“we”，及它的变体：“us，our，me”等。不少情形下，第二人称代词“you”的使用都由第一人称代词所代替了。例如：“ We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.”这是演说者所使用的一种语言技巧。第一人称复数代词“we”可以包括讲话人及听话人,使用“we”就等于把讲话人放到听话人的同一立场之上，或更精确地说,是把听话人拉到了自己的一边。这样一来就会使听众感到亲切,就更容易赢得听众的支持。另外,肯尼迪的演讲中,祈使句的使用也颇具特色。演讲中，大量的使用了祈使句。其中大多数都采用“Let···”的形式。祈使句的作用就是向听众进行直接呼吁，激起他们的热情，让他们按照演讲人的意图办事。在好的演讲中，尤其当演讲人在听众中有很高的威信时使祈使句有很大的煽动性。肯尼迪演讲中所使用的祈使句就完全达到了这种效果。
这里附上这篇肯尼迪就职演说节选的中文翻译，各位同学可以来欣赏一下这位美国历史上得到广大民众普遍欢迎和爱戴的总统的语言魅力。
现今世界已经很不同了，因为人在自己血肉之躯的手中握有足以消灭一切形式的人类贫困和一切形式的人类生命的力量。可是我们祖先奋斗不息所维护的革命信念，在世界各地仍处于争论之中。
让我从此时此地告诉我们的朋友，并且也告诉我们的敌人，这支火炬已传交新一代的美国人，他们出生在本世纪，经历过战争的锻炼，受过严酷而艰苦的和平的熏陶，以我们的古代传统自豪，而且不愿目睹或容许人权逐步被褫夺。对于这些人权我国一向坚贞不移，当前在国内和全世界我们也是对此力加维护的。
对于那些我们欢迎其参与自由国家行列的新国家，我们要提出保证，绝不让一种形成的殖民统治消失后，却代之以另一种远为残酷的暴政。我们不能老是期望他们会支持我们的观点，但我们却一直希望他们能坚决维护他们自身的自由，并应记取，在过去，那些愚蠢得要骑在虎背上以壮声势的人，结果却被虎所吞噬。
对于那些住在布满半个地球的茅舍和乡村中、力求打破普遍贫困的桎梏的人们，我们保证尽最大努力助其自救，不管需要多长时间。这并非因为共产党会那样做，也不是由于我们要求他们的选票，而是由于那样做是正确的。自由社会若不能帮助众多的穷人，也就不能保全那少数的富人。
最后，对于那些与我们为敌的国家，我们所要提供的不是保证，而是要求：双方重新着手寻求和平，不要等到科学所释出的危险破坏力量在有意或无意中使全人类沦于自我毁灭。
因此让我们重新开始，双方都应记住，谦恭并非懦弱的征象，而诚意则永远须要验证。让我们永不因畏惧而谈判。但让我们永不要畏惧谈判。
让双方首次制订有关视察和管制武器的真诚而确切的建议，并且把那足以毁灭其它国家的漫无限制的力量置于所有国家的绝对管制之下。
让双方都谋求激发科学的神奇力量而不是科学的恐怖因素。让我们联合起来去探索星球，治理沙漠，消除疾病，开发海洋深处，并鼓励艺术和商务。
让双方携手在世界各个角落遵循以赛亚的命令，去“卸下沉重的负担……(并)让被压迫者得自由。”如果建立合作的滩头堡能够遏制重重猜疑，那么，让双方联合作一次新的努力吧，这不是追求新的权力均衡，而是建立一个新的法治世界，在那世界上强者公正，弱者安全，和平在握。
凡此种种不会在最初的一百天中完成，不会在最初的一千天中完成，不会在本政府任期中完成，甚或也不能在我们活在地球上的毕生期间完成。但让我们开始。
双篇文章
双篇文章从老SAT中被保留到了新SAT的阅读考试中。很多考生对双篇阅读文章有恐惧心理，觉得很难做，两篇文章都要弄懂。其实并没有想象中的那么难，关键是掌握好技巧。双篇文章中的互联题，也当然的从老SAT中保留到了新题中。因为是单独存在于双篇文章中的题型，所以并没有列在整体的题型分类之中。这里在讨论双篇文章的结构式阅读的方法的同时，也附带着分析一下双篇互联题型的解题技巧。
双篇文章确实比单篇文章考查的内容要更广，不论是查找位置、建立对比关系还是互相对待彼此的态度，都确实比单篇要涉及到更深的阅读能力。但相比起单篇文章而言，主要的阅读难度在于信息量更大，并不存在任何的额外的语言难度或者思路上的难点。这样看来，只要同学们充分的理解双篇文章的结构特点，完全可以提高对双篇文章进行阅读理解的效率，从而完美的解决新SAT阅读中双篇文章的阅读和解题。
-
同一话题的两个相反的观点
-
同一话题的两个相似的观点
-
讨论两个不同但有联系的话题
进一步分析双篇文章的内容特征，我们会发现这类文章往往涉及到某两个要素之间的关系。我们可以将两篇文章的内容都概括为两个要素的关系，而对于这种关系的判断，两篇文章可能得出相似的结论，或者截然相反的结论。在某些特殊情况下，也会出现一篇文章态度鲜明，而另一篇文章保持中立的可能。
Passage 1 is excerpted from Michael Thackeray’s “The Long, Winding Road to Advanced Batteries for Electric Cars, published in 2012. Passage 2 is excerpted from Julie Chao’s “Goodbye, Range Anxiety? Electric Vehicles May Be More Useful Than Previously Thought,” published in 2015.
Passage 1
Batteries have come a long way since Alessandro Voltafirst discovered in 1800 that two unlike metals, when separated by an acidic solution, could produce an electriccurrent. In their evolution, batteries have taken on various forms, ranging from lead-acid, to nickel-metal hydride, to current-day lithium-ion.
Now, technological advances in batteries are more criticalthan ever. Coupled with the alarming rate at which we are exploiting fossil fuels, the world’s growing energy demand necessitates that we find alternative energy sources.
With present-day technology, however, electric vehicles cannot compete with internal combustion vehicles.According to [one] review, “energy densities two and five times greater are required to meet the performance goals of afuture generation of plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs)with a 40-80 mile all-electric range, and all-electric vehicles(EVs) with a 300-400 mile range, respectively.” To make the leap, scientists will have to find new couplings of battery materials.
Still, researchers are hopeful of a breakthrough. They can now use computing to accelerate the discovery of new electrode and electrolyte systems. This creates a positive feedback loop in which computing informs experiments, and experimental results help refine the computing process. This high-throughput iterative process may be scientists’ ultimatehope for discovering materials that can significantly improve the electrode chemical performance, safety and cost of batteries.
Passage 2
With today’s electric vehicle (EV) batteries, “end of life”is commonly defined as when the storage capacity drops down to 70 to 80 percent of the original capacity. As capacity fades, the vehicle’s range decreases. Berkeley researchers decided to investigate the extent to which vehicles still meet the needs of drivers beyond this common battery retirement threshold.
The Berkeley scientists analyzed power capacity fade, or the declining ability of the battery to deliver power, such as when accelerating on a freeway on ramp, as it ages. They modeled the impact of power fade on a vehicle’s ability to accelerate as well as to climb steep hills and complete other drive cycles. They found that power fade for the chosen vehicle [a Nissan Leaf] does not have a significant impact on an EV’s performance, and that a battery’s retirement will bed riven by energy capacity fade rather than by power fade.
The researchers thus conclude that “range anxiety may bean over-stated concern” since EVs can meet the daily travel needs of more than 85 percent of U.S. drivers even after losing 20 percent of their originally rated battery capacity.They also conclude that batteries can “satisfy daily mobility requirements for the full lifetime of an electric vehicle.”
通过对这两篇文章的阅读，可以发现，两者都是讨论电池与汽车性能之间的关系的。其中Passage 1对这个关系持有一种负面的态度：“With present-day technology, however, electric vehicles cannot compete with internal combustion vehicles.”而Passage 2则持有积极的态度，认为：“… that batteries can satisfy daily mobility requirements for the full lifetime of an electric vehicle.”
这样我们可以认为，例子中的双篇文章的基本结构就是：
通过这个例子，我们可以将绝大部分的双篇文章简化成这样一种结构，即：“两个要素之间的关系，及对这种关系的不同态度。”根据双篇文章的内容不同，这种结构大致可以分为以下的三种形式：
第一：
第二：
第三：
这样，我们就将似乎比较复杂的新SAT阅读中的双篇文章，简化为这样的几种结构。同学们在阅读的时候，可以有意识的使用这种结构式阅读的思维模式，提高阅读效率，从而迅速的把握双篇文章的主要内容。
在双篇文章所涉及的题目中，一部分是只于其中的某一篇有关的题目。这种题目的分类和解题技巧与在其它文章中的题目完全一致，将在后文中详细分类讨论。这里着重介绍基于双篇文章的题目类型，即讨论两篇文章相互关系的题目。
首先我们来看下双篇文章的第一种独有题型，求同题。顾名思义求同题既为问两篇文章主旨或某细节的共同点。如果按传统的解题步骤毫无疑问我们得把文章1得定位点找到并理解，再把文章2的定位点找到并理解，然后总结出二者有什么共同之处，然后再到选项中找到一个是原文同义改写的选项做为正确答案。但是这么做就相当于我们做单篇文章细节题两道题的解题内容，这样不仅使我们在考试中的阅读量凭空加倍，而且还无形中额外的消耗掉了宝贵的考试时间。
我们可以仔细研究下求同题的本质，假设这道题是问Passage 1和Passage 2中心的共同点的，如果Passage 1的主旨要素有AB两个，而Passage2的主旨要素主要是B，那正确答案就是要素B的同义改写。两篇文章的主旨要素必然是有交集的，因为如果没有交集就表示没有共同点，这道题就不应该存在了。
所以我们换个角度，在略读的过程中已经大体掌握两篇文章的主要内容，至少能够判断那篇文章主旨更简洁单一一些，回到上面的例子，只要我们直接回去找Passage 2的主旨，拿它做同义改写即可，因为Passage 2的主旨要素要比Passage 1的单一，因此无论Passage 1在讲什么，它都必然包含有B这个要素。经过大量真题的总结，也会发现，往往双长文章有一篇会有多个主旨观点，而另一篇为单一主旨观点时会出现主旨求同题，所以也符合这个规律。
延伸到细节求同，细节求同与主旨求同也比较类似，两个细节哪个更好定位我们就着重去看那个，直接到选项中去找它的同义改写，因为另一个必然得有和它相交的部分。
其次我们再讲讲求异题。首先是主旨求异。同样的主旨求异按照传统的解法还是把两篇文章主旨各找到并分别理解，再总结出它们的不同点既为正确答案的同意改写，还是用两道题道题的时间做一道题的内容。
我们发现主旨求异的选项表述往往是Passage1说了….而Passage2说了…的形式，所以我们可以直接纵向看所有选项的前半边或后半边，找到跟其中一篇文章主旨一致的选项既为正确答案。
而细节求异是很麻烦的一种题目，更麻烦的情况是没有任何定位行号的题目，只能用肉眼把两个定位细节处找到才能比较其不同点，所以细节题无技巧可言，建议同学们可以考虑放到最后做。
|
