3. 结尾段

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is in valid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that college-bound students are most concerned about the promise of jobs after graduation and the F College can keep its promise in the end. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that promising students jobs can actually encourage them to work harder in their study. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the question throughout the argument.

To conclude, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts that GT has indeed to meet the requirements of C Corporation. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce more evidence concerning the foods and service of D and how they can better meet the needs of C’s employees.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that an offer of employment to the spouse is the only condition that new professors consider on accepting P’s offer. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to rule out other possible causes of the low staff morale at the university.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the percentage of the affected families and their geographical distribution. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the electric expense relevant to the actual amount of time for cooling among, respectively, the three groups of households and the amount of electricity used for other purposes in all three groups of families under survey.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between sending Get-Away’s mechanics to the Quality-Care Seminar and improved maintenance, greater customer satisfaction and greater profits for the airline. To strengthen the argument, the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that automobile maintenance and airplane maintenance are similar in every aspect. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between improved maintenance and greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits.

   2. 中间段

First, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that airplane mechanics and automobile maintenance crews perform many similar functions, but he does not provide any evidence that their functions are indeed comparable. As we know, the structure, operation and function of airplanes and those of automobiles differ conspicuously. It is true that both the airplane and the automobile need refueling and engine maintenance, but even here there exist fundamental differences: the structure and the building materials of each other’s engines are different, so is the oil they use. Therefore, even though the two-week Quality-Care Seminar proved effective in improving the performance of the maintenance crews in the automobile racing industry, there is no guarantee that it will work just as well for airplane mechanics

Second, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the maintenance of the airline has been improved as a result of sending its mechanics to the Seminar, which is, of course , unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that there will be greater profits as well as greater customer satisfaction for airline. As we know, customer satisfaction depends on several major factors other than good maintenance of the airplane. For instance, customers are generally concerned about the punctuality, the on-board service, the ticket price, the luggage handling procedure and even the discount, all of which are ignored by the arguer. Besides, the arguer does not provide any solid information concerning how the airplane can improve its profits. Unless Get-Away Airlines can significantly increase its customers or passengers and at the same time cut down its costs, both of which are unknown from this argument, there is no guarantee that it will “inevitably” harvest greater profits. Actually, the arguer’s recommendation of investing in this training program a the only way to increase customer satisfaction an profits would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.

In the first place, the arguer fails to take into account the geographical factors in the analysis. While we informed that there are wide geographical differences in the nation of Claria, and that many citizens are experiencing rising costs of electricity, the arguer fails to make clear the exact number of those citizens or their percentage in the national population, as well as the geographical distribution of these citizens. If only a small portion of the whole population are experiencing the rising costs of electricity while most familiars do not have similar experience, then the reason might be that the former do not use electricity sparingly. In this case, the rising costs of those families have nothing to do with what kind of electric appliance they use to cool their house. Or if only families living in hot areas are spending more money on cooling, then it is unwise to require citizens living in temperate and frigid zones to install both fans and air conditioners, in the absence of all this information, it is impossible for us to install both fans and air conditioners. In the absence of all this information, it is impossible for us to evaluate the recommended policy that is intended to help every household nationwide to reduce their electricity cost.

In the second place , the comparison in this argument is incomplete and selective, the arguer discovers that using fans alone is more cost effective than using air conditions alone, and that using both fans and air conditioners are the least expensive way of cooling. However, the arguer fails to provide any information regarding the actual amount of time for using, respectively, fans alone, air conditioners alone, and both fans and air conditioners in those three groups of surveyed families. It is very likely that these three groups of families are located in three very different climatic regions of Claria, and hence the amount of days of the year during which they need to cool their houses varies significantly. Families living in cooler areas of the nation certainly cool their houses for fewer hours and hence use less electricity than families living in hot areas, no matter what cooling appliance they use. Unless we are certain that the surveyed families ling in the same climatic region, or that they need to cool their houses for the same amount of hours in the same year although they live in different regions, which is very unlikely, we have every reason to doubt the trustworthiness of this comparative study. Furthermore on electricity may be using more electricity for purposes other than cooling. Unless the arguer also takes this factor into consideration, the comparison is unconvincing.

First of all, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. According to the cited studies, professors at Bronston College are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the local area than when their spouses work in distant areas, which is understandable. This fact tells very little about what actual conditions the professors often consider as important when they choose where to work. Even if we accept the arguer’s assumption that whether their spouse can find a job in the local area Is the only important question that new professors consider when they decide whether to accept is it likely that the professor will consider accepting the university’s offer. Consequently, it is unwarranted to assume that new professors will accept Pierce’s offer whether their spouse can find satisfactory employment in the local area.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider several other relevant factors that may influence professors’ decision. For instance, since Pierce’s location is not ideal, the pay it offers should be high enough to be attractive. New gifted professors are also concerned about the position they can have and the courses they supposed to teach in the new university. What’s more, what researchers care most about might be the university’s research conditions such as laboratory equipments, adequate research funds, etc.

Finally, the arguer hints that the morale of Pierce’s entire staff is low, but he fails to analyze the causes. Is it because the management of the university is poor, or because the pay is too low, or because the local area stuffers from economic depression, or because the local environment is severely damaged by industrial pollutionUnder these circumstances, offering employment to the spouse would be ineffective at all for the purpose of attracting more new professors. Furthermore, if these problems do exist, even if Pierce succeeds in hiring many of the most gifted teachers and researchers of the country, the general moral of the whole faculty would remain low.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to convince us that Cedar’s present supplier the Good-Taste should be fired. First, the fact that the Good-Taste is the second most expensive caterer in the city may be due to its better foods, quality service and high reputation in this industry. Second, the fact that it prices have been rising for the last three years may be due to nationwide inflation or the rising cost in the food industry. Third, the fact that Good- Taste refuses to serve special diets does not indicate that it cannot meet the needs of Cedar Corporation unless the arguer can demonstrate that Good-Taste served special diets at first and now it refuses to do so hence disappointing Cedar’s employees complained, which makes it impossible for us to e valuate the overall service of Good-Taste. Maybe these three people are those few on special diets. Even if they have every reason to complain about the foods or service of the supplier on a certain day, these three people’s opinion lacks the necessary representativeness based on which we can make any general judgment concerning the overall performance of Good-Taste.

Another point worth considering is the arguer’s hasty generalization. We are informed that Discount serves fish and poultry, but we do not know whether Cedar’s employee all prefer this limited menu. We can believe that one sample lunch that the arguer happened to taste was indeed delicious, but based on this slim information, we can never evaluate the overall performance of Discount.

One major assumption in short of legitimacy is the causal relationship claimed between college-bound students’ increasing concern abut job prospects after graduation and their expectation on the university to find jobs for them. Students’ increasing concern about job prospects may mean that when they choose which university to go to they prefer those universities that can offer the majors most likely to lead to more job opportunities and higher income after graduation. They may also be more interested in prestigious universities because their students are more competitive and more welcomed in the job market. As is known to everyone, in a market economy, promising to find jobs for students is impractical and hence rather doubtful. This strategy may prove misleading and counterproductive in the end. Instead of promising jobs to students, Foley College should devote its resources and efforts to offering more majors with good job prospects as well as attracting more prestigious professors to enhance its reputation.

In addition, the conclusion is based on a gratuitous assumption that promising students jobs will make students more conscious in their study. This, however, is unwarranted. When students do not have to worry about their employment after graduation, they feel no pressure in their study; as a result, they will become more passive and dependent and gradually lose the initiative to improve themselves. Although it is more likely that they will complete their coursework, but when they graduate, no company would like to employ them. By then the university’s promise will turn not to be meaningless.

难点四：

        未能体会GMAT的改错真谛。准确地说，GMAT改错除了改正语法错误之外，更强调表达的有效性和简洁性。这一点既是GMAT与TOEFL的不同之处，又是GMAT语法大大难于TOEFL语法的关键之所在。因为ETS经常对同一句意用二道三个语法上正确，但表达上有差异的选项干扰你的思路。如：(A)Hewasabsentbecausehewasill.(B)Hewasabsentforthereasonthathewasill.这两种表达在语法上都正确，但为什么GMAT选A而不选B呢?其原因就在于表达的简洁性和有效性上，because比forthereasonthat简洁，所以选A。对于此点的不充分理解部分来源于我们有一个先入为主的观念，认为改错就一定只是针对语法现象，类似于TOEFL。同时，也由于我们在英语学习中缺乏这样的训练造就的。因为，一般非英语专业的学生很少有writing课。即使有，老师只会告诉你同一意思可以用几个句型来表达，但从来不会要求你去辨别哪个是最简洁的，表达上是最有效的。

        难点五：
 
        不能把握题干的真实含义。在一些复杂的，较长划线部分的难题中，由于句中混杂较多的修饰成分和逻辑搭配不当问题，使得考生在很短的时间内无法分辨出句子的真实含义，经常在二三个选项间徘徊，总觉得这二三个选项的句意都可以理解通，由于时间限制，只好从中随机挑一个从而导致最后的失分。

        难点六：

        心理上的畏惧。由于以上几点的困惑及茫然，导致解题的准确度下降;自然而然，考生的自信心受挫，畏惧心里也就随之增强。

   难点一：      

   对一些基本语法知识的生疏。毋庸置疑，英语表达有一些固定的结构，比如：Itisestimated(believed，thought)that;todosth.istodosth.;一些固定词组的搭配如accommodationtosth.，beliefin，both...and等，这些是我们学习英语表达的基础，掌握它们只能靠记忆。而很多准备GMAT的商业人士，因为长期不用而忘记这些用法，从而不可避免地影响GMAT改错的学习。      

   难点二：      

   GMAT语法规则与通常我们所学的，甚至一些专业语法书籍的规则不尽相同。所以如果我们用已有的语法知识去解按新规则设计的题目，不可避免地会产生一些困惑。在中学课本中，我们曾学过“which”可指代前面整个句子的用法，例如：Heworkedinthisfieldforseveralyears，whichcontributedtohislatersuccess.在此句中，which指前面整个句子，但在GMAT看来，which不能指代前面整个句子，因而此句话是错误的。又比如：中学语法课本说过，that引导宾语从句时，that可省可不省;而GMAT则认为，that一般不可省。诸如此类的问题还有很多。在碰到此类问题时，若你马上摒弃以前的旧思想，以GMAT的要求去调整你已有的语法规则，那么你可能不会有太大的困惑。而若你试图通过查阅更全、更厚的语法书去证明你原有的语法知识是错的，而GMAT是正确的话，你最后会发觉你的这些时间、精力的耗费都是徒劳的，因为往往查阅的结果只会使你确信，你原有的相关知识是对的。      

    难点三：      

    不能有效地把握句子的重心。在GMAT改错中，几乎所有的题干都是复合句。每一个复合句都有一个主要信息和一个或几个附属信息。在英语表达中，主要信息必定要用一个完整的句子来表达，而次要信息则会采用从句、分词短语或独立结构来表述。如：Watchingnewsontelevision，wehadourdinner.在这个简单的复合句中，Wehadourdinner是句子的主要信息，而从属信息是Watchingnewsontelevision(采用分词形式，表主句的伴随状况)。对于这样一个正确的句子，ETS经常会采用主次颠倒和主次不分的手法对此句进行修改，制造出两个干扰项：(B)Havingourdinner，wewatchednewsontelevision(C)Wehadourdinnerandwatchednewsontelevision.(B)为主次颠倒(C)为主次不分。由于我们母语汉语中并无类似现象，且由于中英文表达上的差异性，经常就会导致GMAT考生认为三个句子的意思都是一样的，从而面对不知该选哪一个的困惑。

SAT写作考试高分成绩的取得是建立在语言和内容两个部分上的，当然其中最为基础的就是语言中的词汇和句子。下面就从词句的角度为大家详细的分析一下SAT写作技巧方面的内容，希望能给大家带来一些帮助和借鉴。

1). 词汇的多样性。

有调查指出，中国学生在作文中最常出现的词性为动词，因为我们脑中时刻紧记着以前语文老师要求的只有用动词才能写出生动的文章，才能体现我们的博览群书。然而英语中却不尽然。通过对大多高分范文的分析，不难发现，除了动词词组的运用，各种的名词的使用更得考官的青睐，更能体现外国人的文风。

中国学生的这种作文用词多是因为以人做主语而导致的，所以大家在练习的时候，可以多尝试一些被动语态或者从其他角度进行分析。

另外，SAT写作考试虽然不是语言考试，对大家的词汇量还是有一定的需要的，在写作中，如果一个相同的词在400字的文中出现了不下三次，那么作为学生自己，也会觉得自己的文章没有可看性，更别提考官，可见此学生语言功底一般，又怎么拿得到高分。

而如果一篇文章，关于同个词却有三四中表达方法，无疑给这篇文章加分不少。其实同义词也是展现一个学生英语水平的一个媒介。

中国学生最常用的形容词就是good, 不管是修饰什么名词，用上再说，殊不知这已经给这篇文章打了个相对低的起评分，所以如何来表达不同的“好”呢?我们就可以用excellent, marvellous, gorgeous, splendid, wonderful等。再如不要一想到“越来越多”就用 “more and more” 尝试用 “an increasing number” 这样不同的词来表达，势必会给平淡的文章增添亮点。

2). 句式结构的多样性

用丰富多彩的句型，也是SAT写作能得高分的标准之一。例如有这样一个句型："If we don't recognize the..."我们是否可以替换为："Failure to recognize..."，再如 “sth. happened in 1998.” 我们也可以替换为 “1998 saw sth happening.” 这样显得更加的地道。此处还推荐学生能用不同的从句写出漂亮的句子，为文章加分。当然，这并不是意味着整篇文章都是复合句或并列句，如果能很好的做到长短句结合，使文章通顺连贯，也是能得到考官喜欢的。

   Tip 1: 采用排除法来排除错误答案        

   如果答案中有一个词你肯定是错误的，你就可以用笔划掉他。就算你还是不知道哪个选项是正确的，继续排除不正确的选项直到不能再 排除，这样在剩下的选项中，就算猜你也有了更大的命中率。        

   其实这一点不仅仅是对填空题，对所有的SAT选择题目都是十分有效的方法，帮助大家节省时间，提高效率。        

   Tip 2: 对于GMAT阅读填空题的两个空格的问题，只要有一个单词错误，就可以排除掉了        

   如果你认识选项中的一些单词不能填入任何一个空格，那先排除那个选项。就算另一个适合，这个答案也是错误的。        

   GMAT阅读填空题有一个空格的，也有两个空格的。对于有两个空格的填空题，这个方法非常简单有效。        

   Tip3：不要扭曲单词的含义，也不要想象单词的含义        

   如果你只能通过扭曲句子含义的方法将一个选项填入空格，那你很可能选择了错误的单词。正确的答案往往能很和谐的融入句子中。        

   很多考生在没有办法选出答案的时候，都习惯性的按照自己想象的意思把单词套进句子中，其实这是最自欺欺人的一个办法了。        

   Tip 4: 单词填入句子中以后，一定要回去检查你的答案        

   当你将整个句子拼合在一起后，这并不能保证你的选择一定是正确的。但是至少有一个能够肯定你没有犯一个显而易见的错误的法。      

   Tip5: 勇敢的选择你不熟悉的单词      

   很多人在做SAT阅读填空题的时候都倾向于选择自己认识的单词，就算单词不是那么完美的符合句子的含义。但是很多时候答案就是那些我们并不是非常熟悉或者根本不认识的单词。

   目前准备SAT考试的大都为高中二年级的学生，这一时期学生的单词量平均在2000左右。然而SAT考试要求的词汇量大约在10000以上，要想在短时间之内将自己的单词量扩充5倍以上难度很大，因此大部分考生都会集中记忆SAT高频单词，就是在SAT真题中出现的单词。在记忆这些SAT单词的时候，大家需要注意：

　　1、“快速，多遍”记单词

　　很多同学给自己制定了长达半年的记忆SAT单词的计划，但没过几个月，前面背过的东西早已忘得一干二净。因此，保量同时也要保质，记单词，重在及时重复，如果对任何一个单词在当天重复3遍，并在每5天之内要再次重复，并时不时利用闲暇时间进行强化，记忆效果会好很多。

　　2、记单词与做练习相结合

　　没有上下文语境，我们做的第一步只能是雾里看花，对于单词意思不能够准确把握，带入文章后也觉得不通顺，所以，与练习的结合对于背单词也是至关重要的，并且是必不可少的，甚至可以说，只有在练习的过程中我们才会掌握一个词真正的意思。

　　3、不需要记单词拼写与读音

　　在如此多的单词量的情况下，SAT不会要求考生对于每个单词的拼写一清二楚，而用来写作的单词1000-2000个也已经足够，其余的单词我们只要知道它大概的长相是什么就可以了。

　　掌握上面的这三个原则，大家在记忆SAT高频单词的时候，就能节省更多的时间和精力，进而花在做题等更多内容的备考上。新东方网提醒考生，单词的掌握是基础，但是不是备考的重点，所以一定要把握好记忆单词的时间，不要放错重点。

   在这一遍里，要注意发掘、总结作者的核心思想是什么，文章的结构是怎样的，每个部分是什么意思。该详读的地方：首段，末段，每段开头和结尾，转折句，结论句。在这些地方可以用笔画出来或者在旁边做标记，这样利于答题。可以略读的地方：例子、形容词、副词等。不要纠结于一些陌生的单词而止步不前，因为这些单词不一定是重点内容，也可能在下文中可以推测出该词的意思。再次，对文章开始三分之一左右的内容要读得仔细一些，因为这里常常会出现重要的内容，即文章的主题。　　

　　在读完第一遍之后读文章后面的问题。　　

　　如果后面的有些问题感觉难作答，可以先略过，等到回答了其它问题再解决这些难题，不可在此停留太久，使得后面简单的问题没有充足时间回答。对于一些较为复杂的问题，要回到原文当中去寻找文章中所对应的原始描述，然后在选项中寻找最贴切的答案，其实好多选项是文章内容的改写，要注意辨别。　　

　　再次强调掌握考试时间的重要性。第一次考SAT时，我对时间掌控得一塌糊涂，最后有不少题目没有做，不乏简答题。吸取第一次的教训后，每一次做阅读我都对自己高标准严要求，不仅次次计时，考试时间还比考试要求压缩两分钟。这样训练久了就有了习惯，真正考试时还真有两分钟左右的剩余。 　　

　　阅读其实是一个特别考察英语基本素质的部分。因此要在平时多读一些英文报纸、杂志，听英语新闻，在这里可以找到大量英语文章及素材，通过每天阅读3-4篇文章，累计一个月，你就会发现自己的英语语感有很大提高，而英语语感是制约阅读速度的一个重要因素，没有一定的英语语感，阅读能力肯定会裹足不前。并且，要对社会、科学、文学、艺术等多个领域有所涉猎，因为SAT阅读内容比较广泛，涉及人类社会的方方面面，如果对一些领域不够了解，不仅会影响对文章的把握，而且会造成一定的不自信和慌乱，从而降低阅读速度。 　

　　阅读成绩其实是很容易就可以被提高的，只要大家每天都投入一些时间在阅读上，配合一些有技巧的练习，那么SAT阅读不再是难题。

   绝大部分中国考生都会花费大量的时间在记忆SAT单词本身上，但是事实上，记忆单词只是备考的基础而不是备考的重点。所以大家一定要记得记忆SAT单词的目的在于应用，至于记忆多少，记忆到什么程度都是根据做题的实际来决定的。

　　SAT单词掌握的多少对SAT考试成绩有很大的影响，但是SAT单词量的多少不和SAT考试成绩成正比。

　　就是说SAT单词量多了，不表明SAT考试成绩就一定高；SAT单词量少了，SAT考试的成绩也不一定就不高。

　　这话听起来像是绕口令，但是这是一个最基本的原则。SAT考试是一个标准化的能力考试，全英文答题，所以对于中国的考生来说，掌握必要的SAT第n次量是参加SAT考试的前提条件，但是大家在准备这个前提条件之后，还要准备的就是每个考试项目的专业知识，比如阅读技巧，写作方法和数学的运算等等。

　　SAT考试的备考时间是有限的，所以大家花费时间在各个科目上的时候，就需要适当的压缩背单词的时间，这样才能更加有效率。

　　SAT单词记忆的目的是应用，所以大家在记忆的过程中，一定要根据实际的需要进行，也就是一定要重视记忆的效果。

　　一般美国高中毕业生的词汇量在12000个以上，所以对SAT词汇量的要求也就定在了12000个，很多考生纠结于SAT单词数量的硬性要求，认为如果自己没有背完10000个单词，就表明自己不达标，实际上这是个误区，即使背会了10000个SAT单词，你也不一定能考到2000分以上，只表明你考高分的可能性会比较大。

　　SAT考试对单词的考察并不是单纯考察词汇的意思，即使是和词汇关联最大的填空题，也并不只是考察词汇的意思。要想在填空部分取得高分，更多的是依赖句子成分的划分和逻辑推理的能力。所以，对于SAT单词量的记忆，大家一定要量力而为，争取把最核心的超高频词汇也就是最有记忆价值的这部分单词搞定，大概在3500—4000左右。

　　这些超高频词汇才是真正的硬性要求，也就是必须掌握的内容，因为它们出现的频率太高，如果准备不足，很容易在考场上丢分。

　　完成了第一步，如果还有时间和精力，再来进一步扩充自己的词汇量。当然，如果时间充足，还是建议大家能尽可能多地补充SAT高频词汇，因为词汇量越大，胜算的可能性就越大。

　　比如说阅读，虽然阅读部分考查的是学生的阅读能力，而非单词。但如果一篇文章，大部分单词都认识，生词很少，理解起来当然更容易些。

　　最后新东方网提醒考生，一定不要让自己记忆SAT单词的时间多于做题的时间，这是非常得不偿失的做法。

　　如果把记忆SAT单词当做了备考SAT考试的重点，那么大家留给做题的时间就会非常少，很多中国考生往往是在考前的1-2月里才把重心放在做题上面，但是时间紧迫，只能草草地把每套题做一遍，甚至没有做完。

　　至于参加SAT考试的时候，第一次考砸了，继续考第二次，第三次……这也是大家反复参加SAT考试的重要原因，因为需要更多的时间做题，更多的时间了解题目的出题方式等特点。，等把题真正做熟练了，成绩也就上来了，所以大家备考SAT的过程中不要把时间主要花在背单词上，还是要多做题，把单词的记忆应用到实际中去。  

   SAT考试复习重点：阅读和写作 美国高考SAT 考试分为数学、阅读和写作三个部分，中国学生把SAT考试的复习重点应该放在阅读和写作中。如哈佛、耶鲁、普林斯顿三所美国名牌大学的入学要求成绩是，数学700分、阅读700分、写作700分。排名前15的大学要求国内学生的阅读、写作成绩要达到650分以上。所以阅读和写作是SAT考试的复习重点。

　　中国学生的普遍强项是数学，平均成绩一般在750分以上，但单纯的SAT数学高分不会起到拉分的作用。美国名校同样看重的是考生的阅读和写作成绩。这两项成绩有一项低于700分，是不可能被综合排名前三位的哈佛、耶鲁、普林斯顿大学录取。

　　目前，国内SAT考生的阅读和写作的分数一般都不高。阅读、写作两部分成绩都能超过600分已经是很不错的成绩了。这样的成绩距美国顶尖大学的入学要求仍有相当大的差距。考生的阅读和写作成绩欠佳的原因是多方面的。最主要的原因是考生对SAT考试缺乏正确的认识，没有明确的、可行的备考主线和原则，所以说SAT考试的复习重点应该是阅读和写作。

　　目前国内考生备考SAT 主要的参考书是各式各样的美国引进版教材，这些教材是美国的考试专家写给美国高中生看的，国内考生同美国考生的高中教育背景完全不同，英语水平差距悬殊，阅读理解方法不同，作文写作思路不同。如此众多的不同，导致国内考生并不能完全吸收美国教材中的精髓部分，当然提高不了成绩。

　　所以说，中国学生SAT 数学能考高分，但是阅读和写作差也是不行的。学生在平时应该把SAT考试的复习重点放在阅读和写作上，要能够读懂SAT学术类和古典文学类阅读文章，在语言分析的基础上提高理解能力和解题正确率。同时，有效地抓住SAT作文审题扣题核心要素，进而正确地完成SAT作文写作。