污翼鸟无遮3d全彩全集


污翼鸟无遮3d全彩全集独家|5月亚太SAT考情速递(附全部真题+详解)


来源:   时间:2019-05-07 17:48:12

炎暑将至万物长,天光明媚风清扬~今天5月4号的这场新SAT考试是2019年的第二场考试,也是自改革后全球范围第38场新SAT考试,即亚洲15考试(School Day和补考除外)。
 
在2018年下半年中8月北美场次的重复旧题,10亚洲场次成绩延迟,12月整体评分苛刻等事件一度把CB推至风口浪尖。然而最近的3月9号亚太场次Curve依旧较北美场次更加严格,也无形之中给大陆考生带来分数上更大的竞争压力,在这样的大背景下有还是有不少学生决定顶住AP考试的双重压力参加5月份这场SAT争取趁热打铁尽早下车。
 
常规意义上这是多数应届学生的SAT二战甚至三战,也不乏个别10年级学霸打算先拔头筹,这一切都表明学生的考试规划愈发提前,培训机构经验逐步积累沉淀,美本标化考试生态日趋成熟稳定。
 
在这样的大氛围下,勤奋和成绩自然会更成正比,努力与出分也是水到渠成的事情,也让我们更加期待这次考试同学们的表现!一如既往,污翼鸟无遮3d全彩全集以为学生提供最为优质的送考服务为理念,整理最全面的考试资料为习惯,传递最快速的考情回顾为目标,又一次派出专业教师团队赶赴多地亲临考试,希望为大家带来最新鲜及时的新SAT考试动态~
 
在本次出发之前
我们针对本次出行的
污翼鸟无遮3d全彩全集教育5月SAT香港考团
做了一次专访
即将随团踏上考场的学生们
对于这次考试有着什么样的期待呢?
赶紧来看看吧
↓↓↓
 

考试概述

考试整体呈现出的难度正常偏上一点,其中阅读难度中等偏上(主要难度在于单篇历史的理解),语法和数学都不算难。阅读部分的结构顺序上跟去年10月亚太/12月亚太/今年3月亚太保持基本的一致,都是小说+历史单篇+三篇科学(科学对比的次序校友差异)。相信做过前几套的学生应该对这个结构有所熟悉和准备。
 
但在评分标准的预估方面仍旧要看大家的表现和CB最后的评定,不过阅读部分较三月的难度提升会使评分适当放宽,但语法部分的curve可能依旧不乐观。
 

 各科回忆

 阅读部分

 
这次考试阅读整体难度中等偏上,预计评分曲线会比异常严厉的今年三月亚太更松(也即会有一定容错率)。文章次序也延续,在第二篇出现较难的历史单篇。亚太卷在经历三次科学对比后,仍然维持科学对比(放在第三篇)。
 
整体来看,整套题考点非常规整,均是老师上课反复强调的常考知识点,比较有难度的是历史类文章观点的把握以及部分科学细节。这也提醒平时上课、练习和总结的重要性。题型方面,词汇、信息目的、逻辑推理、独立寻证、回应互联、图表题等常见题型均有考察。
 
其中,词汇题共9题,疑似重复考察3题(课上反复强调),大部分语境提示信息都比较明显。按老师课上所教授的方法,基本能分析清楚。部分选项的词汇难度偏高,体现了平时词汇积累的重要性。相信平时在污翼鸟无遮3d全彩全集督学监督下坚持背词的同学终有了回报。
 
信息目的题在各篇文章均有出现,解题的思路还有选项的设置都符合这类题型的固有规律。难点在于明确信息间的关系以及信息的目的,避免过度解读信息本身而选到干扰选项。假设题再次出现。
 
污翼鸟无遮3d全彩全集SAT教研组后续将对这套试卷全面深入教研,相关文章会发在污翼鸟无遮3d全彩全集公众号上,敬请期待。以下是五篇文章的详细情况:
  
阅读第 1 篇文章概述
第一篇小说
名称:Mrs. Manstey’s View 
年代:1891
这篇小说选段开篇介绍了一个人物的日常习惯和性格,Mrs. Mansley, 她平常不太闲着,喜欢看点书,但是不多,真正的爱好是养各种花花草草。看这这些鲜花,她就觉得很满足,都不屑于和别人交往。一天,她的女房东Mrs. Sampson来了,告诉她隔壁邻居Mrs. Blacks要装修房子,会建一堵很高的墙。这个消息让Mrs. Mansley大惊失色,脸色发白,虽然她命没有说什么。女房东虽然不满,但是说没有任何法律可以阻止这个事情的发生,只能接受。房东走后,Mrs. Mansley看着自己窗外的花草,顿觉人生失去了意义,因为以后那些植物就要被一堵高墙给遮盖住了。
 
阅读第 1 篇考题
Q1:词汇题,考察idle的意思
Q2: focus shift , 问在18行,小说出现了怎样的内容转变
Q3: 功能题, 询问Mrs. Mansley and Mrs. Sampson的对话起到什么作用
Q4: 词汇题,考察absorbing 的含义
Q5: 细节题,Mrs. Sampson 宣布了哪一个消息
Q6: 推断题,Mrs. Sampson没有发现Mrs. Mansley的那个反应
Q7:询证题,Mrs. Sampson对于邻居装修房子是什么态度
Q8: 询证题,四个证据
Q9: 询证题,Mrs. Mansley对于邻居装修房子的态度
Q10: 询证题,四个证据
  
阅读第 2 篇文章概述
罗斯福于1906年发表的演说 the Man with the Muck Rake,以《天路历程》(The Pilgrim’s Progress)作为引子,呼吁揭发包括政界商界在内的一切犯罪和丑闻,但警告这样的揭发必须以事实作为依据,不能借此造谣污蔑,否则只会造成更大后果,虽然罗斯福意识到自己这样的呼吁很容易被人误解和利用,但他还是依旧坚持作出了这样的号召。
 
阅读第 2 篇考题
第一和第二题均为主旨题,第一题的选项均为抽象概括性描述,第二题要求给出罗斯福具体的central claim
第三题问开篇提到天路历程中的角色the man with the mud rake的用意,经典干扰选项提到了引述内容中的spiritual matter
第四题词汇题问service,答案work
第五题问重复出现every这个措辞的作用
第六第七为配对寻证,问罗斯福的关键观点揭发丑闻必须注意哪个方面,答案要尊重事实
第八第九依旧为配对寻证,问罗斯福预见到自己的呼吁会被怎样错误运用
第十题为较难定位细节题,问揭发丑闻的人要承担怎样的社会责任
第十一题考查最后一段的段落大意
  
阅读第 3 篇文章概述
科学对比文章,逻辑非常清晰,两篇文章讨论的是否能根据化石的微小结构pigment分布来判断原始reptile(主要是恐龙)的颜色。
 
第一篇文章开头引入这个方法,后面用一个实验来质疑这个方法,主要问题是化石微小结构色素的来源可能是参与化石的细菌。实验用了鸡来模拟,因为鸡是恐龙的近亲。第一篇文章结尾说现在很难说,需要更多特别是化学数据。
 
第二篇反过来支持说化石的颜色其实能体现原始恐龙颜色,主要不是根据外观,而是化学成分,有个叫Eu***的化学成分在reptile的皮肤和化石保持不变,最终作者支持化石颜色能体现原始reptile的颜色。
 
阅读第 3 篇考题
Q1 词汇 drive 选cause(第二次考)
Q2 为什么用鸡来做实验(近亲)。
Q3 对应证据
Q4 词汇 determine 选establish(第N次考)
Q5 回应,第二篇文章对第一篇研究的态度。
Q6 第二篇主旨(实验根据,化学成分Eu***)
Q7 两篇主旨取同(实验和结果)
Q8 细节取同(都不否认有些microscopic有用)
Q9 关系取同
Q10 独立取证,第二篇对第一篇研究方法特点features的陈述。
  
阅读第 4 篇文章概述
第一段先引入sarcasm的定义,用来传达contradiction to our intentioned meaning。后文转折讲到sarcasm其实可以提高人的创造力。在以往的实验中,研究人员发现大家都偏向于认为sarcasm是condemning的,而不是literal meaning,讽刺也经常会被误解,人们也会高估自己对讽刺的理解能力。2015年作者和其他同事研究发现当研究对象能识别出讽刺的时候,deliver和recipient都能更加的creative。
 
阅读第 4 篇考题
1. 细节题,sarcasm的定义
2. 词汇题,serious。该词是和sarcastic形成反义词,选direct
3. 词汇题 badly
4. 细节题,2015年的实验之前的细节内容
5. 单一循证题,下面哪个证据能支持原文所说的实验中not surprising的部分
6. 7 双询题,考的是实验研究的结果
8. 段落目的题,考最后一段的作用
9和10 为图表题,比较简单,分别选B和A
  
阅读第 5 篇文章概述
文章主要讲兔子也像人一样变得更加城市化了。虽然在西欧很多国家,兔子因为疾病,环境等因素数量急剧下降,但研究人员在德国的city parks, suburb parks, countryside做了很多研究发现兔子的家园越来越多集中在城市区域,而且分布平均,和人口城市化趋势类似。另外一个惊奇的发现是兔子趋向于以更小的群体为单位居住,可能的原因有两个,一是城市温度较高,二是资源丰富。
 
阅读第 5 篇考题
第一题段落功能题,询问第一段的写作目的
第二题词汇题,regular的意思
第三题细节题,询问研究意义,问什么要研究兔子窝
第四题独立询证题,问哪一个句子可以支持一个观点,即,研究城市中的兔子窝比研究乡村的兔子窝容易
第五题 词汇问artificial 答案synthetic
第六和第七配对寻证 问实验者收集数据的方式说明了什么,答案兔子洞的外观可以说明兔子洞的尺寸
第八题问了关于居住地环境温度和食物的细节
第九第十题均为跟文章无关的图表题,倒数第二道读Y轴即可。最后一道urbanization没有超过一个具体的数。

 语法部分

 
这次语法整体难度中等。综合来看,语法考点符合官方考查思路,题型和选项设置思路比较常规,与老师上课分析的考点和强调的重难点一致,这充分说明了做题和反思总结错题的重要性。
 
这次考试基础语法部分所涉及到的重难点及易错考点主要有run-on sentence, logical comparison, verb usage之时态和主谓一致, 句中标点之逗号/分号/冒号/破折号/撇号的考查,以及标点符号中相对比较难的一个点即限定修饰和非限定修饰的标点的判断(which的指代)。这部分的题目如果同学们基础用法掌握扎实,做题时遵循严谨的做题流程(如分析句子结构/看完全句),细心认真点基本不会有问题。
 
语篇修辞这部分相对而言重难点和易错点主要有主旨题,材料增删题,逻辑排序题,过渡词选择题,过渡句,篇章结尾句以及语境用词题等。这部分题目需要同学们在做题时大概理解原文内容的基础上,注意审题并合理定位需要联系的上下文信息,再充分运用课堂上老师总结的做题方法和规律基本可以胜任。过渡词选择题和语境词汇题一直是我们同学的软肋,这两种题型均涉及句义的把握和对选项中过渡词/词汇用法的掌握,所以平时多储备并推敲精确的用法至关重要。这次考试过渡词难度中等,涉及到的主要有however。词汇考察难度中等。
  
语法第 1 篇文章概述
文章大意:人们为了打破大家对书籍是静物的观念,发明出了movable books,其中可以有一些可移动的插图等。
 
语法第 1 篇考题
1:段落主旨题,问哪句符合这个段落的大意
2. 考察连接词while
3. 形式上是一个平行结构,但主要考查哪个选项的内容和前两个例子属于同一个类别
4. 主谓一致题,one of 。。。考查动词是否要加s
5. 句子插入题,问给出的句子(和科技有关)是否能放入段落之中
6. 考查名词是否要加‘s 以及动词是否要加s(主谓一致)
7. 标点符号题,涉及到了逗号,破折号,句号
8. 连接词
9. 标点符号,涉及到了逗号,分号
10. 时态题,主要是判断文章是现在时和过去时
11. 段落总结题,大致是说现在科技进步了,internet等也能保留这种丰富阅读的方式
  
语法第 2 篇文章概述
文章大意:讨论的是大富翁(monopoly)这个游戏的创始者一开始对于游戏的设想,以及后来经历的一些游戏设计上的改变。
 
语法第 2 篇考题
1. 考查标点符号,前半句是with连接的结构和一个修饰成分,考查用逗号,句号还是其他符号
2. 词汇题,考查哪个词汇最符合上下文意思,有enrichment这个选项
3. 连接词eventually等哪个最符合两句话的衔接
4. 句意考查,问哪句话符合段落想表达的意思
5. 段落承接句考查,涉及到最能引出下一段的句子
6. although连接的从句,考查主句部分but是否需要
7. ‘s的考查,名词是否需要加’s
8. 考查句子的保留删减,这里符合上下文的内容,可以保留
9. 这道题考查了句子的合并,与此同时还涉及到平行结构的识别,和哪部分作为修饰成分的判断
10. 标点符号题
11. 文风题,考查四个选项哪个用词最贴合原文风格
  
语法第 3 篇文章概述
Insulation is Heating up
主要观点:文章体裁为议论文。随着节能意识的普及,隔热装修材料受到大众的喜爱。随之而来的是相关工作机会的增多(包括私人住宅和商业装修需求)。同时,市场上相关新材料也增多。综上,该行业将会蓬勃发展。
 
语法第 3 篇考题
1. 标点符号题。先判断句子成分,考察分号何逗号的区别。
2. 句子题。考察句子成分的并列,注意看前面的名词。
3. 语言表达题。根据全文感情色彩选择合适用词。
4. 表格题。注意根据表格判断上升和下降趋势。
5. 表格题。注意根据表格判断工作种类。
6. 表达用法题。考察连词的使用,前后的转折关系。
7. 词汇题。注意区分各词表“合适的”之义的区别。
8. 篇章结构题。注意根据上下文判断逻辑关系和主语。
9. 标点符号题。先判断句子成分,考察分号何逗号的区别。
10. 篇章结构题。注意根据下文意思选择,应强调该新材料的特点。
11. 表达用法题。考察句子同位语用法,注意介绍个人身份时逗号的使用。
  
语法第 4 篇文章概述
Nether Wind nor Ice nor Gloom of the Night 
主要观点:文章体裁为记叙文。主要记载了1934年4月11号的特大飓风情况。因为当时测量工具有限,所以科学家们只能以身犯险,最终成功测得风力新纪录。现在的工具已经有了很大进步,但是人们依然记住他们的成就。
 
语法第 4 篇考题
1. 标点符号题。先判断句子成分,考察分号何逗号的区别。
2. 表达用法题。考察代词的使用,注意单复数的区别。
3. 篇章结构题。注意根据上下文判断逻辑关系和主语。
4. 句子题。考察非谓语的使用,注意找出句子的逻辑主语。
5. 篇章结构题。注意根据上下文判断逻辑关系和主语。
6. 语言表达题。考察简洁性的使用,注意排除啰嗦赘余成分。
7. 句子题。考察句子成分的并列,注意看前面的名词。
8. 句子题。考察句子成分的并列,注意看前面的名词。
9. 句子排序题。注意根据前面主语(科学家的名字)选择。
10. 语言表达题。考察简洁性的使用,注意排除啰嗦赘余成分。
11. 表达用法题。考察连词的使用,前后的转折关系。
 
\
 \

1. 熟悉常用语法概念,夯实语法基础知识,搭建完善有效的语法体系
2. 做题时定位考点,遵循严谨的做题流程(如分析结构和看完全句)
3. 进行错题的反思和总结(最好能整理错题本),分析并找到错误原因,进而优化做题思路。
注意第三步至关重要,是找出自己问题,优化做题思路,总结规律技巧的过程。
 

\
1. 精读文章以优化文章的阅读方式,把握文章脉络结构和观点主旨
2. 区分题型并注意审题,精确理解题干要求并合理定位解题所需要的上下文信息
3. 区分选项,深度理解选项要表达的核心语义
4. 同类题型进行类比总结以归纳做题方法和规律
 
\
\
\
·
注意 “职业名称+人名”中间无标点,所以上述题目分别选A/D/A
·上述题目包含了两种情况:  1. 零冠词职业名称+人名;2. 定冠词the限定的职业名称+人名。
·注意这两种情况在SAT目前考查到的范围内都不加逗号隔开,即【(the) 职业名称 +人名】无标点。(例外或其他情况暂不作讨论)
 
\
·though的用法在我们的真题中考到了很多次,我们比较熟悉的是其作为连词的用法,基本等同于although, 连接主从句。 但真题中基本考查的都是其作为副词时基础结构的用法和句间逻辑衔接的用法。
·Though作为副词用时,语义基本等同于however,表达句间的转折逻辑
·但与however不一样的是,though作为副词不能置于句首,常常置于句中作插入语句或者置于句末,故【S,though,VO.】  和【SVO,though.比较常见。
·但从语义理解上还是提至句首进行理解,表达的是前一句的转折逻辑。

 \
\
 

数学部分

 总体概述
这次数学题目非常规整,整体难度不高,计算量也不大,没有计算器手算也基本能解决,因为就没有除不尽的情况。
 
知识点方面,二元一次方程,二元一次方程,linear equation,统计推断,3M,统计推断均有出现和考察,而且整体难度不高。
 
有陷进的题也不多,只有一道问二元一次方程两个解的乘积(product) 。还有一道略难的题是:告知你抛物线parabola的顶点,问你c的可能值,根据顶点的xy值和-a小于0,可以找到答案。
 

附录 

阅读第 1 篇文章原文
Mrs. Manstey, in the long hours which she spent at her window, was not idle. She read a little, and knitted numberless stockings; but the view surrounded and shaped her life as the sea does a lonely island. When her rare callers came it was difficult for her to detach herself from the contemplation of the opposite window-washing, or the scrutiny of certain green points in a neighboring flower-bed which might, or might not, turn into hyacinths, while she feigned an interest in her visitor's anecdotes about some unknown grandchild. Mrs. Manstey's real friends were the denizens of the yards, the hyacinths, the magnolia, the green parrot, the maid who fed the cats, the doctor who studied late behind his mustard-colored curtains; and the confidant of her tenderer musings was the church-spire floating in the sunset. 
 
One April day, as she sat in her usual place, with knitting cast aside and eyes fixed on the blue sky mottled with round clouds, a knock at the door announced the entrance of her landlady. Mrs. Manstey did not care for her landlady, but she submitted to her visits with ladylike resignation. To-day, however, it seemed harder than usual to turn from the blue sky and the blossoming magnolia to Mrs. Sampson's unsuggestive face, and Mrs. Manstey was conscious of a distinct effort as she did so. 
 
"The magnolia is out earlier than usual this year, Mrs. Sampson," she remarked, yielding to a rare impulse, for she seldom alluded to the absorbing interest of her life. In the first place it was a topic not likely to appeal to her visitors and, besides, she lacked the power of expression and could not have given utterance to her feelings had she wished to. 
 
"The what, Mrs. Manstey?" inquired the landlady, glancing about the room as if to find there the explanation of Mrs. Manstey's statement. 
"The magnolia in the next yard -- in Mrs. Black's yard," Mrs. Manstey repeated. 
 
"Is it, indeed? I didn't know there was a magnolia there," said Mrs. Sampson, carelessly. Mrs. Manstey looked at her; she did not know that there was a magnolia in the next yard! 
 
     "By the way," Mrs. Sampson continued, "speaking of Mrs. Black reminds me that the work on the extension is to begin next week." 
"The what?" it was Mrs. Manstey's turn to ask. 
 
"The extension," said Mrs. Sampson, nodding her head in the direction of the ignored magnolia. "You knew, of course, that Mrs. Black was going to build an extension to her house? Yes, ma'am. I hear it is to run right back to the end of the yard. How she can afford to build an extension in these hard times I don't see; but she always was crazy about building. She used to keep a boarding-house in Seventeenth Street, and she nearly ruined herself then by sticking out bow-windows and what not; I should have thought that would have cured her of building, but I guess it's a disease, like drink. Anyhow, the work is to begin on Monday." 
 
Mrs. Manstey had grown pale. She always spoke slowly, so the landlady did not heed the long pause which followed. At last Mrs. Manstey said: "Do you know how high the extension will be?" 
     "That's the most absurd part of it. The extension is to be built right up to the roof of the main building; now, did you ever?" 
 
"Mrs. Manstey paused again. "Won't it be a great annoyance to you, Mrs. Sampson?" she asked. 
 
"I should say it would. But there's no help for it; if people have got a mind to build extensions there's no law to prevent 'em, that I'm aware of." Mrs. Manstey, knowing this, was silent. "There is no help for it," Mrs. Sampson repeated, "but if I am a church member, I wouldn't be so sorry if it ruined Eliza Black. Well, good-day, Mrs. Manstey; I'm glad to find you so comfortable." 
 
So comfortable -- so comfortable! Left to herself the old woman turned once more to the window. How lovely the view was that day! The blue sky with its round clouds shed a brightness over everything; the ailanthus had put on a tinge of yellow-green, the hyacinths were budding, the magnolia flowers looked more than ever like rosettes carved in alabaster. Soon the wistaria would bloom, then the horse-chestnut; but not for her. Between her eyes and them a barrier of brick and mortar would swiftly rise; presently even the spire would disappear, and all her radiant world be blotted out.
 
阅读第 2 篇文章原文
Over a century ago Washington laid the corner stone of the Capitol in what was then little more than a tract of wooded wilderness here beside the Potomac. We now find it necessary to provide by great additional buildings for the business of the government.
This growth in the need for the housing of the government is but a proof and example of the way in which the nation has grown and the sphere of action of the national government has grown. We now administer the affairs of a nation in which the extraordinary growth of population has been outstripped by the growth of wealth in complex interests. The material problems that face us today are not such as they were in Washington's time, but the underlying facts of human nature are the same now as they were then. Under altered external form we war with the same tendencies toward evil that were evident in Washington's time, and are helped by the same tendencies for good. It is about some of these that I wish to say a word today.
In Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck Rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck rake in his hand; who was offered a celestial crown for his muck rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.
In "Pilgrim's Progress" the Man with the Muck Rake is set forth as the example of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of spiritual things. Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing.
Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck rake, speedily becomes, not a help but one of the most potent forces for evil.
There are in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man, whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, business, or social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform or in a book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful.
The liar is no whit better than the thief, and if his mendacity takes the form of slander he may be worse than most thieves. It puts a premium upon knavery untruthfully to attack an honest man, or even with hysterical exaggeration to assail a bad man with untruth.
An epidemic of indiscriminate assault upon character does no good, but very great harm. The soul of every scoundrel is gladdened whenever an honest man is assailed, or even when a scoundrel is untruthfully assailed.
Now, it is easy to twist out of shape what I have just said, easy to affect to misunderstand it, and if it is slurred over in repetition not difficult really to misunderstand it. Some persons are sincerely incapable of understanding that to denounce mud slinging does not mean the endorsement of whitewashing; and both the interested individuals who need whitewashing and those others who practice mud slinging like to encourage such confusion of ideas.
One of the chief counts against those who make indiscriminate assault upon men in business or men in public life is that they invite a reaction which is sure to tell powerfully in favor of the unscrupulous scoundrel who really ought to be attacked, who ought to be exposed, who ought, if possible, to be put in the penitentiary. If Aristides is praised overmuch as just, people get tired of hearing it; and over-censure of the unjust finally and from similar reasons results in their favor.
Any excess is almost sure to invite a reaction; and, unfortunately, the reactions instead of taking the form of punishment of those guilty of the excess, is apt to take the form either of punishment of the unoffending or of giving immunity, and even strength, to offenders. The effort to make financial or political profit out of the destruction of character can only result in public calamity. Gross and reckless assaults on character, whether on the stump or in newspaper, magazine, or book, create a morbid and vicious public sentiment, and at the same time act as a profound deterrent to able men of normal sensitiveness and tend to prevent them from entering the public service at any price.
As an instance in point, I may mention that one serious difficulty encountered in getting the right type of men to dig the Panama canal is the certainty that they will be exposed, both without, and, I am sorry to say, sometimes within, Congress, to utterly reckless assaults on their character and capacity.
At the risk of repetition let me say again that my plea is not for immunity to, but for the most unsparing exposure of, the politician who betrays his trust, of the big business man who makes or spends his fortune in illegitimate or corrupt ways. There should be a resolute effort to hunt every such man out of the position he has disgraced. Expose the crime, and hunt down the criminal; but remember that even in the case of crime, if it is attacked in sensational, lurid, and untruthful fashion, the attack may do more damage to the public mind than the crime itself.
It is because I feel that there should be no rest in the endless war against the forces of evil that I ask the war be conducted with sanity as well as with resolution. The men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck, and to look upward to the celestial crown above them, to the crown of worthy endeavor. There are beautiful things above and round about them; and if they gradually grow to feel that the whole world is nothing but muck, their power of usefulness is gone.
If the whole picture is painted black there remains no hue whereby to single out the rascals for distinction from their fellows. Such painting finally induces a kind of moral color blindness; and people affected by it come to the conclusion that no man is really black, and no man really white, but they are all gray.
In other words, they neither believe in the truth of the attack, nor in the honesty of the man who is attacked; they grow as suspicious of the accusation as of the offense; it becomes well nigh hopeless to stir them either to wrath against wrongdoing or to enthusiasm for what is right; and such a mental attitude in the public gives hope to every knave, and is the despair of honest men. To assail the great and admitted evils of our political and industrial life with such crude and sweeping generalizations as to include decent men in the general condemnation means the searing of the public conscience. There results a general attitude either of cynical belief in and indifference to public corruption or else of a distrustful inability to discriminate between the good and the bad. Either attitude is fraught with untold damage to the country as a whole.
The fool who has not sense to discriminate between what is good and what is bad is well nigh as dangerous as the man who does discriminate and yet chooses the bad. There is nothing more distressing to every good patriot, to every good American, than the hard, scoffing spirit which treats the allegation of dishonesty in a public man as a cause for laughter. Such laughter is worse than the crackling of thorns under a pot, for it denotes not merely the vacant mind, but the heart in which high emotions have been choked before they could grow to fruition. There is any amount of good in the world, and there never was a time when loftier and more disinterested work for the betterment of mankind was being done than now. The forces that tend for evil are great and terrible, but the forces of truth and love and courage and honesty and generosity and sympathy are also stronger than ever before. It is a foolish and timid, no less than a wicked thing, to blink the fact that the forces of evil are strong, but it is even worse to fail to take into account the strength of the forces that tell for good.
Hysterical sensationalism is the poorest weapon wherewith to fight for lasting righteousness. The men who with stern sobriety and truth assail the many evils of our time, whether in the public press, or in magazines, or in books, are the leaders and allies of all engaged in the work for social and political betterment. But if they give good reason for distrust of what they say, if they chill the ardor of those who demand truth as a primary virtue, they thereby betray the good cause and play into the hands of the very men against whom they are nominally at war.
In his Ecclesiastical Polity that fine old Elizabethan divine, Bishop Hooker, wrote:
He that goeth about to persuade a multitude that they are not so well governed as they ought to be shall never want attentive and favorable hearers, because they know the manifold defects whereunto every kind of regimen is subject, but the secret lets and difficulties, which in public proceedings are innumerable and inevitable, they have not ordinarily the judgment to consider.
This truth should be kept constantly in mind by every free people desiring to preserve the sanity and poise indispensable to the permanent success of self-government. Yet, on the other hand, it is vital not to permit this spirit of sanity and self-command to degenerate into mere mental stagnation. Bad though a state of hysterical excitement is, and evil though the results are which come from the violent oscillations such excitement invariably produces, yet a sodden acquiescence in evil is even worse.
At this moment we are passing through a period of great unrest-social, political, and industrial unrest. It is of the utmost importance for our future that this should prove to be not the unrest of mere rebelliousness against life, of mere dissatisfaction with the inevitable inequality of conditions, but the unrest of a resolute and eager ambition to secure the betterment of the individual and the nation.
So far as this movement of agitation throughout the country takes the form of a fierce discontent with evil, of a determination to punish the authors of evil, whether in industry or politics, the feeling is to be heartily welcomed as a sign of healthy life.
If, on the other hand, it turns into a mere crusade of appetite against appetite, of a contest between the brutal greed of the "have nots" and the brutal greed of the "haves," then it has no significance for good, but only for evil. If it seeks to establish a line of cleavage, not along the line which divides good men from bad, but along that other line, running at right angles thereto, which divides those who are well off from those who are less well off, then it will be fraught with immeasurable harm to the body politic.
We can no more and no less afford to condone evil in the man of capital than evil in the man of no capital. The wealthy man who exults because there is a failure of justice in the effort to bring some trust magnate to account for his misdeeds is as bad as, and no worse than, the so-called labor leader who clamorously strives to excite a foul class feeling on behalf of some other labor leader who is implicated in murder. One attitude is as bad as the other, and no worse; in each case the accused is entitled to exact justice; and in neither case is there need of action by others which can be construed into an expression of sympathy for crime.
It is a prime necessity that if the present unrest is to result in permanent good the emotion shall be translated into action, and that the action shall be marked by honesty, sanity, and self-restraint. There is mighty little good in a mere spasm of reform. The reform that counts is that which comes through steady, continuous growth; violent emotionalism leads to exhaustion.
It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well won and fortunes ill won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law honesty. Of course, no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them.
As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual-a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits. Again, the national government must in some form exercise supervision over corporations engaged in interstate business-and all large corporations engaged in interstate business-whether by license or otherwise, so as to permit us to deal with the far reaching evils of overcapitalization.
This year we are making a beginning in the direction of serious effort to settle some of these economic problems by the railway rate legislation. Such legislation, if so framed, as I am sure it will be, as to secure definite and tangible results, will amount to something of itself; and it will amount to a great deal more in so far as it is taken as a first step in the direction of a policy of superintendence and control over corporate wealth engaged in interstate commerce; this superintendence and control not to be exercised in a spirit of malevolence toward the men who have created the wealth, but with the firm purpose both to do justice to them and to see that they in their turn do justice to the public at large.
The first requisite in the public servants who are to deal in this shape with corporations, whether as legislators or as executives, is honesty. This honesty can be no respecter of persons. There can be no such thing as unilateral honesty. The danger is not really from corrupt corporations; it springs from the corruption itself, whether exercised for or against corporations.
The eighth commandment reads, "Thou shalt not steal." It does not read, "Thou shalt not steal from the rich man." It does not read, "Thou shalt not steal from the poor man." It reads simply and plainly, "Thou shalt not steal."
No good whatever will come from that warped and mock morality which denounces the misdeeds of men of wealth and forgets the misdeeds practiced at their expense; which denounces bribery, but blinds itself to blackmail; which foams with rage if a corporation secures favors by improper methods, and merely leers with hideous mirth if the corporation is itself wronged.
The only public servant who can be trusted honestly to protect the rights of the public against the misdeeds of a corporation is that public man who will just as surely protect the corporation itself from wrongful aggression.
If a public man is willing to yield to popular clamor and do wrong to the men of wealth or to rich corporations, it may be set down as certain that if the opportunity comes he will secretly and furtively do wrong to the public in the interest of a corporation.
But in addition to honesty, we need sanity. No honesty will make a public man useful if that man is timid or foolish, if he is a hot-headed zealot or an impracticable visionary. As we strive for reform we find that it is not at all merely the case of a long uphill pull. On the contrary, there is almost as much of breeching work as of collar work. To depend only on traces means that there will soon be a runaway and an upset.
The men of wealth who today are trying to prevent the regulation and control of their business in the interest of the public by the proper government authorities will not succeed, in my judgment, in checking the progress of the movement. But if they did succeed they would find that they had sown the wind and would surely reap the whirlwind, for they would ultimately provoke the violent excesses which accompany a reform coming by convulsion instead of by steady and natural growth.
On the other hand, the wild preachers of unrest and discontent, the wild agitators against the entire existing order, the men who act crookedly, whether because of sinister design or from mere puzzle headedness, the men who preach destruction without proposing any substitute for what they intend to destroy, or who propose a substitute which would be far worse than the existing evils-all these men are the most dangerous opponents of real reform. If they get their way they will lead the people into a deeper pit than any into which they could fall under the present system. If they fail to get their way they will still do incalculable harm by provoking the kind of reaction which in its revolt against the senseless evil of their teaching would enthrone more securely than ever the evils which their misguided followers believe they are attacking.
More important than aught else is the development of the broadest sympathy of man for man. The welfare of the wage worker, the welfare of the tiller of the soil, upon these depend the welfare of the entire country; their good is not to be sought in pulling down others; but their good must be the prime object of all our statesmanship.
Materially we must strive to secure a broader economic opportunity for all men, so that each shall have a better chance to show the stuff of which he is made. Spiritually and ethically we must strive to bring about clean living and right thinking. We appreciate that the things of the body are important; but we appreciate also that the things of the soul are immeasurably more important.
The foundation stone of national life is, and ever must be, the high individual character of the average citizen.
  
阅读第 3 篇文章原文
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence,” that connoisseur of witticisms, Oscar Wilde, is said to have remarked. But not everyone shares his view. Communication experts and marriage counselors alike typically advise us to stay away from this particular form of expression. The reason is simple: sarcasm carries the poisonous sting of contempt, which can hurt others and harm relationships. By its very nature, it invites conflict.
Sarcasm involves constructing or exposing contradictions between intended meanings. It is the most common form of verbal irony—that is, allowing people to say exactly what they do not mean. Often we use it to humorously convey disapproval or scorn. “Pat, don't work so hard!” a boss might say, for example, on catching his assistant surfing the Web.
And yet behavioral scientists Li Huang of INSEAD business school, Adam D. Galinsky of Columbia University and I have found that sarcasm may also offer an unexpected psychological payoff: greater creativity. The use of sarcasm, in fact, appears to promote creativity for those on both the giving and receiving end of the exchange. Instead of avoiding snarky remarks completely, our research suggests that, used with care and in moderation, clever quips can trigger creative sparks.
Early research into how people interpret sarcastic statements revealed, as one might expect, that most perceive such comments as critical compared with more direct utterances. In one study, published in 1997, 32 participants read scenarios in which, for instance, one person did something that could be viewed negatively, such as smoking, and a second person commented on the behavior to the first person, either literally (“I see you don't have a healthy concern for your lungs”) or sarcastically (“I see you have a healthy concern for your lungs”). Consistently, participants rated sarcasm to be more condemning than literal statements.
In 2000 University of Western Ontario researchers encouraged 66 students to read a scenario while imagining the perspective of a certain person in the story, such as the viewpoint of someone making a critical comment or the person receiving that comment. Although there was some disagreement on how these comments might affect the relationship between a speaker and listener, perspective taking did not alter anyone's understanding of the speaker's intentions, such as mockery or a desire to provoke anger.
And sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, particularly when it is communicated electronically, according to a 2005 study by Jason Parker and Zhi-Wen Ng, both then psychologists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and their colleagues. They gave 30 pairs of university students a list of statements, half of which were sarcastic and half serious. Some students relayed messages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who received the voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percent of the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56 percent of the time, hardly better than chance.
The e-mailers had anticipated that 78 percent of the participants would pick up on the sarcasm inherent in their messages. That is, they badly overestimated their ability to communicate the tenor of these statements via e-mail. And the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were even more overconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of the e-mail messages about 90 percent of the time. They were much better at gauging their ability to interpret voice messages.
In 2015 my colleagues and I discovered an upside to this otherwise negative picture of sarcasm. In one study, we asked 56 participants to choose a script that was sarcastic, sincere or neutral and then engage in simulated conversation with another subject, who was unaware of the script.
Immediately after our participants enacted the dialogue, we presented them with tasks testing their creativity. For instance, they had to think of a word that was logically linked to a set of three provided words (for example, “manners,” “round” and “tennis” linked to “table”). We also presented them with a short questionnaire about their perceived sense of conflict during the conversation.
Not surprisingly, the participants exposed to sarcasm reported more interpersonal conflict than those in other groups. More interestingly, those pairs who had engaged in a sarcastic conversation fared better on the creativity tasks. This effect emerged for both the deliverer and recipient in the simulated conversation but only when the recipient had picked up on the sarcasm in the script.
Why might verbal irony enhance creativity? Sarcasm's challenge is that the message sounds serious but should not be taken literally. One way to overcome this is through tone—as when exaggerated speech indicates the facetiousness of a message. We need to think outside the box to generate and decipher ironic comments. That means sarcasm may lead to clearer, more creative thinking.
Abstract thinking also helps. In a variant of the previous experiment, we asked 114 students to take on a similar set of roles and tasks (either to listen to or to make sarcastic comments, then take on a creative challenge). But this time we also assessed the students' thinking through a test in which they had to associate a word with either an abstract or concrete action (for example, “voting” could pair with the concrete “marking a ballot” or the abstract “influencing the outcome of an election”). We found that generating or deciphering sarcastic statements occurred more readily when people were thinking abstractly, a state that also promotes creative thinking.
None of our findings negates the fact that sarcasm can damage relationships. So how do we harness its creative benefits without stirring up conflict? It comes down to trust. Our 2015 studies also showed that, given the same tone and content, sarcasm expressed toward or received from someone we trust is less provocative than sarcasm from someone we distrust. Of course, if we were to vary the tone and content, it would make a difference, too. Even trust may not be enough to protect a friendship from an extremely harsh tone and cutting content.
Given the risks, your best bet is to keep conversational zingers limited to those you know well, lest you cause offense. But on occasions when you do enjoy such repartee, you may also boost your creative thinking. To borrow another quote from Wilde, “It is the critical spirit that creates.”
Editor's Note: This article was adapted from a post in the Mind Matters series.
Each week in Mind Matters, researchers explain their disciplines’ most notable recent findings. Mind Matters is edited by Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine
 
阅读第 4 篇文章原文
Sarcasm involves constructing or exposing contradictions between intended meanings. It is the most common form of verbal irony—that is, allowing people to say exactly what they do not mean. Often we use it to humorously convey disapproval or scorn. “Pat, don't work so hard!” a boss might say, for example, on catching his assistant surfing the Web.
And yet behavioral scientists Li Huang of INSEAD business school, Adam D. Galinsky of Columbia University and I have found that sarcasm may also offer an unexpected psychological payoff: greater creativity. The use of sarcasm, in fact, appears to promote creativity for those on both the giving and receiving end of the exchange. Instead of avoiding snarky remarks completely, our research suggests that, used with care and in moderation, clever quips can trigger creative sparks.
Early research into how people interpret sarcastic statements revealed, as one might expect, that most perceive such comments as critical compared with more direct utterances. In one study, published in 1997, 32 participants read scenarios in which, for instance, one person did something that could be viewed negatively, such as smoking, and a second person commented on the behavior to the first person, either literally (“I see you don't have a healthy concern for your lungs”) or sarcastically (“I see you have a healthy concern for your lungs”). Consistently, participants rated sarcasm to be more condemning than literal statements.
In 2000 University of Western Ontario researchers encouraged 66 students to read a scenario while imagining the perspective of a certain person in the story, such as the viewpoint of someone making a critical comment or the person receiving that comment. Although there was some disagreement on how these comments might affect the relationship between a speaker and listener, perspective taking did not alter anyone's understanding of the speaker's intentions, such as mockery or a desire to provoke anger.
And sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, particularly when it is communicated electronically, according to a 2005 study by Jason Parker and Zhi-Wen Ng, both then psychologists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and their colleagues. They gave 30 pairs of university students a list of statements, half of which were sarcastic and half serious. Some students relayed messages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who received the voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percent of the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56 percent of the time, hardly better than chance.
The e-mailers had anticipated that 78 percent of the participants would pick up on the sarcasm inherent in their messages. That is, they badly overestimated their ability to communicate the tenor of these statements via e-mail. And the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were even more overconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of the e-mail messages about 90 percent of the time. They were much better at gauging their ability to interpret voice messages.
In 2015 my colleagues and I discovered an upside to this otherwise negative picture of sarcasm. In one study, we asked 56 participants to choose a script that was sarcastic, sincere or neutral and then engage in simulated conversation with another subject, who was unaware of the script.
Immediately after our participants enacted the dialogue, we presented them with tasks testing their creativity. For instance, they had to think of a word that was logically linked to a set of three provided words (for example, “manners,” “round” and “tennis” linked to “table”). We also presented them with a short questionnaire about their perceived sense of conflict during the conversation.
Not surprisingly, the participants exposed to sarcasm reported more interpersonal conflict than those in other groups. More interestingly, those pairs who had engaged in a sarcastic conversation fared better on the creativity tasks. This effect emerged for both the deliverer and recipient in the simulated conversation but only when the recipient had picked up on the sarcasm in the script.
Why might verbal irony enhance creativity? Sarcasm's challenge is that the message sounds serious but should not be taken literally. One way to overcome this is through tone—as when exaggerated speech indicates the facetiousness of a message. We need to think outside the box to generate and decipher ironic comments. That means sarcasm may lead to clearer, more creative thinking.
 

 
阅读第 5 篇文章原文
Imagine you’re on a particularly boring leg of a road trip and you start counting houses. You pass through long stretches of country without counting anything. When you do see houses, they’re clustered into towns, and may have spacious yards with tire swings. As you approach a city (finally!), rows of houses appear at regular intervals instead of clumping. And in the heart of the city they shrink into little apartments that go by too fast for you to count. European rabbits, it turns out, build their homes in a similar way—and since these animals are disappearing in the countryside, understanding their urban planning strategy matters to humans trying to conserve them.
Hunting, habitat loss, and disease have driven down populations of European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the countrysides of western Europe. Yet rabbit populations in some German cities are, well, hopping. Madlen Ziege, a graduate student at the University of Frankfurt, and her coauthors wanted to know how rabbits are taking advantage of urban areas. They chose the city of Frankfurt, where European rabbits have lived alongside humans since at least 1930.
The researchers scoured nine city parks in Frankfurt for rabbit burrows, along with four more suburban parks and three nearby rural sites. In all, they found 191 burrows. Then they rated each site for its “urbanity,” a measure that included three variables: How many people live within half a kilometer of the burrow site? How many pedestrians, bikers, or dogs pass by at dawn and dusk, when rabbits are most active? And how much of the ground is covered by something artificial, such as pavement or playground turf?
Like census-takers, albeit with a serious language barrier, the researchers tried to count how many rabbits lived in each burrow. For a few dozen burrows, they did this by tagging along with a regular hunting group that flushed the rabbits from their holes with trained ferrets. At other sites, the researchers staked out burrows at dawn and dusk and tallied how many rabbits came and went. They also counted burrow entrances to estimate how big each home was.
As “urbanity” increased—as sites became less rural and more city-like—rabbit burrows became more common. Urban burrows were smaller and simpler, like studio apartments compared to country estates. And while rural burrows were spread out and clumped, like the rural houses on our imaginary road trip, urban burrows were spaced out more evenly.
Ziege writes that the results could easily have been the opposite. Since cities cover up more ground up with pavement and buildings, breaking potential habitat into fragments, city rabbits might end up clustered into big burrows like they do in the countryside. Instead, they’re spread out into small homes.
One reason might be heat. Big groups of rabbits keep their burrows toastier in the winter—but cities are a little warmer to begin with, so living with a lot of warm bodies might not be as important. In the countryside, large burrows with many entrances and escape routes also help protect rabbits from predators. But in the city, there are fewer predators.
Finally, rabbits tend to live in large groups when their resources are limited. In German cities, they may be spreading out because there’s no shortage of food or burrowing space. Country life may mean hunger and hunting ferrets, but for urban rabbits, life is (so far) good.

香港考团花絮

\\\\\\\\\


延伸阅读

从中美高考的差异来看,为何越来越多人选择备考SAT?

污翼鸟无遮3d全彩全集独家|3月亚太SAT考情速递(附全部真题+详解)

这10所SAT平均分1500+的院校,有你的Dream school吗?

热点关注

校区地址
近期出分情况