碰到不认识的词怎么办?乱猜?当然不是。下面就介绍两种解题方法：

　　第一：词根词缀

　　词根词缀是在课堂上与各位考生反复强调的一个做同义词题的很好方法。对于这一类词即使不知道意思也可以根据词根词缀判断出正确答案。比如：

　　DISMANTLE

　　A. run into

　　B. argue with

　　C. give away

　　D. work on

　　E. take apart

　　CONFER

　　A. sharpen

　　B. object

　　C. consult

　　D. exchange

　　E. forecast

　　假如在第一道题里，我们不认识dismantle这个单词，我们也可以根据dis-这个表示“分开”词缀来判断出E是正确答案。Dismantle意为“拆卸、拆开”。第二道题的词缀很明显是con-，表示“一起”的意思，通过这个思路观察一下答案，也不难选出C。Confer意为“商议，商讨”另外，表示“分开”的词缀除dis-之外，di-, se- 等也可以，而表示“一起”的词缀除con-之外，com-, co-, col-, cor-, sym-, syn-等也可以表示这个意思，详见强化班第二节课笔记。

　　再来看这次考试中的另外两个词annotation和aqueduct。Annotation属于a**构词法(详见强化班第二节课笔记)，表示的是强调，去掉前面的a*和后面的名词后缀-tion，不难看出词根是note。这么一分析再和下面的答案一对比，也就不难选出正确答案textualinformation了。 Annotation是注解的意思。Aqueduct这个词很容易把它拆分成aque-和-duct两个部分，根据大家比较熟悉的单词aquarium应该能判断出aque-表示的是“水”的意思，而-duct则表示“引导”，这样猜测这个单词可能的意思，再从五个选项当中选出一个最有可能的选项，也不难选出正确答案channel。

　　第二：联想

　　对于还有些词，我们可以根据联想它的兄弟姐妹(即其它词性的词)来解题。如上文中confer一词，变为名词其实就是conference，这样大家应该很容易就知道它有“商讨”之义。再如这次考的另外一个词Compliance。如果大家对这个词陌生不妨想想它的兄弟comply，即顺从的意思，这个词只是变换了词性，换汤不换药，所以答案应该选obedience。另还有一题：

　　CLARIFICATION

　　A. reproduction

　　B. decrease

　　C. overcharge

　　D. explanation

　　E. connection

　　Clarification，根据构词法应该能看出其动词是clarify，若还是觉得陌生可以再想一个词clarity(清楚，明白)，这样也不难推出clarification就是使弄清楚、使弄明白，即澄清之义，往下看看各选项，也不难选出正确选项D。

　　以上就是两种SSAT同义词的解题方法。同学们在遇到同义词不会做的时候，千万不能乱了自己的阵脚。一定要放轻松，可以借鉴上面的两种方法去解题。

由于SSAT考试是申请当年有效，大部分考生申请都集中在秋冬季节，因此每年11月、12月和1月的考试是最及时有效的，而3月和4月的考试成绩出来后，最优秀的中学招生往往已经截止，所以用途有限。因此考生和家长务必要提前准备，争取在11月、12月的考试中一举成功。考生该如何备考才能取得一个优异的成绩?

　　SSAT考试扫描

　　考生人数一直保持稳定

　　近几年来报考SSAT的人数一直较为稳定，稳定的原因在于第一，中国学生去美国读私立高中，至少需要提供200万以上的保证金，每年的费用也不菲，这对很多家庭来说都是一笔不小的费用;其次，孩子还小，很多学生都舍不得。相比之下，家长更倾向于让孩子去美国读大学。

　　SSAT备考攻略

　　词汇和阅读是中国学生的软肋

　　SSAT考试共分为四个部分：词汇、阅读、数学和写作。前三个部分为计分项目，写作部分虽然不计分但是会在寄送官方成绩给学校时以复印件一并送达，所以也需要重视。考试的时间和题目数目可以用下表表示：

　　这个考试时间短，题目多，对于初中生来说难度还是比较大的。另外中国孩子目前最困难的两个部分：词汇和阅读，特别是词汇，由于目前中国的初中生的词汇量充其量只有3000个左右，而SSAT低年级的词汇要求已达到7000个，而高年级的词汇要求为9000个甚至可以上万个，为了取得一个理想的分数，需要尽早开始准备。想要在SSAT考试中，考试需要至少3个月的密集训练，包括背单词和做题。

　　SSAT考试全解剖

　　SSAT分为两个级别中国学生集中在第二级别

　　SSAT考试分为两个级别：Lower Level (低年级)和Upper Level(高年级)。根据级别的不同，分数也会有一些差异。 Lower Level 一般是针对5—7年级的在读学生;Upper Level 一般是针对8—11年级的在读学生。目前考Upper Level 的中国学生占绝大多数。据了解，低年级和高年级的考试形式和时间完全相同，只是难度和总分值有所区别：低年级分数区间为1320-2130， 高 年 级 分 数 区 间 为1500-2400。就高年级来说，即使整张卷子完全不写也会有1500分，所以一般来说需要考到2000分以上才具有竞争力。

　　另外一方面，每次考试还会给出单项的百分比成绩(percentile)，这个成绩是将考生这项的成绩和过去三年全国和你位于同一年级的人的成绩进行比对所得出的，在申请出具有更强的指示性。比如如果一个考生verbal(词汇)的百分比是90%，也就是说这个考生的成绩比过去三年内90%的考生成绩都要好。这对中国孩子来说是一个非常高的分数。

　　分为写作和选择两种题型

　　SSAT分为写作和选择题两种题型。选择题均为5选1，答题方式为填写答题卡(考试时一定要记得带铅笔和橡皮)。

　　写作为第一部分，考试时间为25分钟。这部分要求考生通过例子来支持或反驳一个观点。所举的例子可以来自个人经历、历史、文学等。这部分内容不计入总分，但会随其他部分的成绩寄送到所申请的学校。校方会根据需要，对之进行评估，并作为录取的参考依据之一。

　　接下来的四个部分均为选择题，包括数学两个部分(各30分钟，各25题)、语文(30分钟，60题)、阅读(40分钟，40题)。

　　1、数学。无论是SSAT的低级还是高级，数学部分的考查内容均不超出国内初中教学的知识点范围，其难点在于：由于采用全英文命题，在理解应用题的题意时，一定要熟悉最常见的表达方式。题目中不会有复杂的精确计算，但是考查估算能力，所以计算器是不允许带入考场的。数学两个部分的难度和范围完全一样，SSAT会在数学两个部分之间插入一个非数学的部分，以便让考生科学用脑。

　　2、语文。语文部分是对词汇的直接考查，对于英语非母语的中学生难度很大。这部分共60道题，具体又分为：30道同义题、30个类比题。

　　同义题，题干为一个单词，要求考生从5个选项中选出一个和题干中单词意义相同的选项。这部分考查的词汇量，在高级SSAT中达到9000词水平，在低级SSAT中达到7000词水平，远远超出了国内教学大纲的要求。解答这类题时，除了依靠很大的词汇量，还可使用基于构词知识的猜测和排除等方法。

　　类比题的形式接近中国古代的对对子，比如某道题，题干中给出的是“frog对toad”，则答案可以是“turtle对tortoise”(内在联系为水生对陆生)。解答这类题，挖掘给出的两个词之间的内在联系，甚至是拼写方面的，然后在选项中寻找内在联系类型相同的一项即可。

　　3、阅读。阅读一般考7～8篇文章，来源非常广泛，题材和体裁五花八门，有时甚至考查短小的抽象诗歌。在如此快的阅读和做题节奏下，考生势必需要具备在快速阅读中掌握主题和定位细节的能力。个别题目还涉及到偏主观的理解，有点类似于国内语文考试的阅读主观题。

　　所谓“知己知彼，百战不殆”，唯有在充分理解SSAT考试的基础上，才能更有针对性的去备考SSAT考试，唯有更了解SSAT考试的各种题型，才有可能在SSAT考试中获得高分。

请大家先看下面一道类比题(摘自SSAT官方指南)：

　　Melon is to felon as

　　(A) mangle is to tangle

　　(B) bunny is to funny

　　(C) honeydew is to robber

　　(D) cringe is to fringe

　　(E) mango is to tango

　　这是一道非常有趣的题目，涉及到了SSAT类比解题中的几个难点和容易被人忽视的点，这里给大家就这道题做一个简单的展开，做一下强调。

　　(一) 词形的考察

　　首先看一下题干中的两个词，Melon的意思是“瓜”，而felon的意思是“重罪犯”，按照人类通用的逻辑我们找不到任何合理的逻辑关系，这种情况在SSAT也是存在的，有些时候SSAT考察的类比关系与词意无关，而仅与词形有关。例如两个词首字母不同、第二个词比第一个词多一个字母、两个词中字母顺序不同等等都是有可能考察到的类比关系。例如：

　　Rough is to cough as

　　A. chapped is to score

　　B. flight is to fright

　　C. sight is to fight

　　D. seated is to sated

　　E. lair is to liar

　　Melon is to lemon as

　　A. cantaloupe to fruit

　　B. star to rats

　　C. trunk to torso

　　D. tames to mates

　　E. tree to human

　　(二) 避免过于Common的类比关系

　　在词意上没有发现突破口的时候，大多数同学可以想到根据词形来寻找类比关系，尤其是在题干中的两个词Melon和felon仅有首字母不同的情况下。但是大家一看答案的五个选项就傻了眼——除了C选项之外，剩下的ABDE四个选项全部符合“首字母不同”这个类比关系。那么，是不是我们应该从这四个答案里面随便选一个就可以了呢?或者难道题出的有问题么?答案显然都是否定的。因为每道题目有且只有一个正确答案，如果你找到的类比关系使得选项中出现了2个甚至更多正确答案，那往往不是题出的有问题，而是你选择的类比关系过于Common，不够Special。

　　题目做到这里很多同学觉得很抑郁，因为题干中的两个词唯一能找到的横向类比关系无法帮助我们选出答案。那么还有什么思路使我们可以去思考的呢?那就是——纵向寻找类比关系。

　　(三) 纵向类比关系

　　纵向寻找类比关系往往是容易被同学们忽视的一种解题思路，因为思维定势使大家更习惯去寻找题干中两个词语横向上的类比而非纵向上的。但实际上，纵向类比关系在SSAT考试中也是经常出现的，如果横向上的两个词语逻辑上关联不大，那么我们事实上可以考虑纵向上的类比。

　　例如在本题中，由于ABDE都可以被我们排除掉了(不可能都是正确答案所以只能都排除)，所以也只剩下C选项了。那么我们就来看一下C的前一个词honeydew是“甜瓜、蜜瓜”的意思，是melon的一种;而后一个词robber“强盗”是felon的一种。纵向上存在一个种属关系!所以这道题的答案就是C选项。

　　我们可以再给大家举出几道例题：

　　Clam is to calm as

　　(A) shell is to smooth

　　(B) sent is to tens

　　(C) scallop is to doldrums

　　(D) fish is to feel

　　(E) oyster is to quiet

　　Money is to tree as Euro is to

　　(A) bush

　　(B) grass

　　(C) cranberry

　　(D) stalk

　　(E) elm

　　上面提到的几点可以说都不是SSAT类比题中最主流的解题思路和方法，但都会考察到，尤其是纵向的类比，很多时候是属于难度相对偏大的题目。因此如果想在SSAT类比题部分有所突破，这几点是大家所必须注意和掌握的。希望大家在练习的过程中多思考多总结SSAT类比题，对所有有可能考察到的类比关系和解题思路都有一个比较好的把握。

内地生多申请9年级

　　据主考官介绍，SSAT是美国中学入学考试，相当于中国中考。它是由位于美国新泽西州普林斯顿市的中学入学考试委员会SSATB命题的考试。至今，该考试中心在全球已设有750多个考场，每年约有6万名考生报考。目前全球有600多所私立中学 (其中包括众多美国、加拿大、瑞士等名牌中学)将SSAT成绩列为入学申请的重要材料之一。

　　SSAT考试也可以说是美国中学语文和数学的考试。它主要测试学生的数学、英文程度及理解力。考试分为数学、词汇、阅读三大部分，另有作文(不记分)。有低阶(5-7年级的考生)，满分为2130分。高阶 (8-11年级的考生)，满分为2400分，两种考卷。

　　目前，中国内地学生参加的主要是SSAT高阶考试，主要为初二、初三学生。因为美国高中是9—12年级，所以8年级学生申请9年级是最好的申请时机。少量高一、高二学生也会报名参加这一考试到美国读10-11年级。但因为除9年级以外的都是插班，所以申请机会往往没有9年级多。

　　词汇和阅读是难点

　　对中国学生来说，SSAT中的数学部分通常比较简单，中国学生如果本身数学基础好，只要掌握了数学的英语术语和解题技巧一般就可以获得高分。要想获得理想的SSAT成绩，最难的部分是词汇和阅读。

　　据了解，SSAT的词汇、阅读、写作其实就是要测试学生的英语水平，但是要想获得SSAT好成绩，决不是只靠背多少英语单词可以解决问题的。

　　SSAT主考官列举了一所美国中学9年级 (美国高一)英语课程的设置、教学要求，从中可以大致了解SSAT考试在词汇、阅读、作文中会涉及到的内容和要求。它们是：

　　教学生学习文学和练习写作的必要技能;以神话、民间传说和流传的故事为切入点，通过听到和叙说的故事中的描述和形容，了解自己、社团、民族、国籍等概念;通过口头讨论以及对一些不同体裁的当代或经典文章的评论，例如小说、短篇故事、诗歌、戏剧或者其他媒介，让学生学习批判性思维;在学生练习说、写能力的同时，安排一些具有创新性的活动：写读书笔记、剪报、周记、小组演讲和短篇故事写作;让学生口述家庭历史等。

SECTION 4

　　1. B 固定搭配，not only … but also

　　2. E 逻辑主语，walking的逻辑主语是人，me不作主语，故选E

　　3. A 逻辑主语，packing的逻辑主语是人，B时态不对，故选A

　　4. E 考察插入语和主谓一致，主语是cells，谓语动词要用复数，选E

　　5. B A不简洁，C，D无谓语动词，E therefore不对

　　6. D 原句是run-on句型，B选项run-on句型，C选项they指代不明，E选项，aim to这个词组一般用主动态，E错误

　　7. B 原句主谓不一致，C选项run-on句型，D,E选项为非完整句。

　　8. B 原句为run-on句型，C，E无谓语动词，D为run-on句型

　　9. A 原句满足主谓一致以及定语从句引导词正确，B，C主谓不一致，D,E无谓语动词。

　　10. E 考察逻辑主语，E选项scheduled和building之间构成被动关系。

　　11. E 考察比较句介词的平行，E选项符合traveling in … than .. in的平行结构

　　12. D 时态错误，改that became为that becomes

　　13. B 此题考察介词位于句首的倒装句主谓一致，改were为was

　　14. B 形容词/副词考点，改efficient为efficiently

　　15. D 平行结构，去掉they offer

　　16. D although和but不能连用

　　17. A 副词修饰动词，改interchangeable为interchangeably

　　18. D 固定搭配，改coping about为coping with

　　19. E NO ERROR

　　20. B 考察时态，改stock为stocked

　　21. B 考察时态，改has presented为had presented

　　22. D 考察代词，改it为them

　　23. D 考察名词一致性，改as a juror为as jurors

　　24. E NO ERROR

　　25. A 考察主谓一致，改are为is

　　26. C 考察强调句型，改when为that

　　27. D 考察平行结构，改growing seasons are short为short growing seasons

　　28. D 考察名词一致性，去掉one of

　　29. A 考察代词，改their为its

　　SECTION 10

　　1.B 平行结构，not only as … but also as

　　2.A 原句是时间状语从句，B选项引导词where错误，C时态错误，D, E run-on句型

　　3.D 考察平行结构，their intelligence和their ability的平行

　　4.A 固定搭配play a role in doing sth.，再根据主谓一致，选A

　　5.E 原句为run-on句型，B选项为run-on句型，C选项which不对，D选项被动

　　6.D one和you不能相互指代，E选项时态不对

　　7.E 原句无谓语动词，B选项run-on句型，C选项为谓语动词，D选项诸位不一致

　　8.C 考察逻辑主语 distinguished的逻辑主语只能是villanelle，而D选项主谓不一致，故选C

　　9.B 原句being错误，C选项matures主谓不一致，D选项and also不简洁，E选项句子无谓语动词

　　10.A 考察时态，过去的过去

　　11.C 考察平行结构，both for … and for …

　　12.B A,C选项similarly和much the same way句意重复，D为非完整句，E为run-on句型

　　13.D 应该是Louisiana这个州的legal system

　　14.E request that sb. (should) do sth. 虚拟语气

   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。