5.7新SAT考试写作原题（附满分范文解析）

虽然之前针对新SAT亚洲首考作文已经有过一些考情分析及答题方法，但是缺少原文及满分范文的比照，相信对于还没有...

虽然之前针对新SAT亚洲首考作文已经有过一些考情分析及答题方法，但是缺少原文及满分范文的比照，相信对于还没有参加过考试的童靴来说仍是一头雾水。

离6月份考试已经不到10天了，备考菌从网上扒来了新SAT亚洲首考写作阅读原文及满分范文解析，童靴们可以自行感受下难度~

（阅读原文见昨日推送：5.7新SAT考试阅读真题原文再现）

▶ 原文重现：



▶ 真题解析：

总体上：

1. 难度高于OG的文章和2016年3月北美的文章，主要是因为涉及较多历史、雕塑等专业词汇，许多考生可能阅读要花较多时间阅读且理解难度大；

2. 主要的论证手法与OG范文公布的基本范围一致，首段就出现引用名人名言，第三段主要用数据和历史事实，这两个出现概率和比重很大，之后主要用了类比。其中类比在OG范文中没有直接出现，备考中容易被忽略，建议后续备考延伸修辞手法。

3. 作文部分时间50分钟，非常紧张，主要是阅读专业单词多，理解难度大，大部分考生都没有写完完整的两面（答题纸有四面）。

以下真题解析及范文由整理自：澜大教育 Florence老师

具体分析：

在写新SAT作文时，为了让分析看上去有纵观全文之感，我们推荐大家开头选一个手法，body paragraph选一个，接近结尾的时候再选一个，给人循序渐进的感觉。

以下是关于此篇文章的具体分析：

（一）

开头，作者提到了耳熟能详的历史典故描绘出神殿饱经风霜的沧桑。第二段提到了基督教诞的五个世纪以后神庙被废弃了，突出了神庙的历史悠久。后来又在1000年以后从基督教变为了清真寺，并且强调是在土耳其帝国占领拜占庭以后，另外还提到过世界大战，并且提到自己曾经和这个历史有关系的人见过面，以此增加了典故的可信度。

作者把人们耳熟能详的历史事件例如“基督教”和神庙的过去编织在一起，以此让大家更清晰地明白神庙历史悠久，从而在开头铺垫下珍惜神庙的情感。

（二）

作者用两次类比更直观地表达目前关于这个神庙而存在的不合理性。

1.把帕特农神庙比作公认的艺术结晶：蒙娜丽莎，以此来说明同样作为建筑的结晶，神庙也同样有必要保留它的完整性。

2.作者又深谋远虑想到也许有读者质疑神庙价值和蒙娜丽莎没有可比性，又用了更直接的类比，假设厄里斯女神的雕像变成两半，身首异处，波塞冬惨遭截肢，从而把对这种现象的反感转移到了帕特农神庙这件事上，强烈感觉到需要让神庙物归原主。

（三）

谈论到希腊政府正在努力从污染中拯救神庙时，作者最后用了非常尖锐的讽刺。第三段中说到Lord Elgin就是那个把雕像“锯”下来带回英国的罪魁祸首。本来大家对这个人的情感应该是极其厌恶的，因为作者在第四段提到环境污染的时候，还用用“goon”，“smash”来加强了这种厌恶的感觉。但是，出乎大家意料的是作者竟然在第四段还感谢了这个人，谢谢他切断这些雕像带回英国，事情没我们现象中那么糟糕，也就是说这些雕像可以留在英国 不用被环境污染所侵染。这里其实是一个反语。

作者在第四段开头通过对环境污染的描述让读者再次对神庙的未来忧虑万分，然后作者调侃说，你们这些忧虑大可不必，因为雕像还都在英国呢。作者用这种幽默的方式，尖锐地指出其实在解决环境对神庙的影响以前，更重要的是让神庙变得完整。让读者们对英国扣留神像这件事情更加印象深刻。

▶ 范文赏析：

Confronted with the cruel withholding of fragments of the Parthenon by British

Museum, Christopher Hitchens issues a vehement opposition against this brutality in the article “The Lovely Stones”. The author employs galvanic allusions to history, rational analogy and incisive irony to persuade the reader that those separated portions of Parthenon deserve reunion.

In order to set a foundation for his argument, Hitchens introduces multiple familiar

historic events to convince the reader that the Parthenon has survived the

vicissitudes of history. One ways she utilizes facts is by referencing “Christianity”

which established five centuries after the Parthenon was desolated, indicating

that the temple enjoyed a history long before the birth of Christianity. To follow

that, Hitchens shifts to mention that the Parthenon transformed from a Christian

church into a mosque a thousand years later and accents “after the Turkish

conquest of the Byzantine Empire”. The dramatic changeover portrays Parthenon as a victim so tragic that sympathy is aroused. Furthermore, the author points out a role played by “Nazi” in the mutilation of the Parthenon and draws in his reader with a personal anecdote associated with a Greek who “climbed up and tore the swastika down”, successfully providing a baseline for readers to find credence with his claims. Hitchens’ intelligently weaving such household names as “Christianity”, “Byzantine Empire” and “Nazi” into the history of the Parthenon help readers to appreciate its great value. After being challenged to face these inflictions imposed on the body of this historic relic, the reader may turn their awe into obligations to protect the temple.

Ingenious literary skill plays a part in Hitchens’ argument as well, since it builds

upon the sentiment basis established at the beginning. Analogy is applied twice

to display the irrationality with regard to the issue of the Parthenon. In paragraph

4, he compares the temple to the well-recognized masterpiece, Mona Lisa. It is

supposed that Mona Lisa break into two halves, one of which is in Russia and

the other Spain. The reader will undoubtedly realize the necessity to reunite this

painting. The author here skillfully transfers to the temple the veneration felt for

Mona Lisa, making the audience condemn the overbearing misdeed. Hitchens

also foresees some disagreement based upon the inequality in value between the Parthenon and Mona Lisa and makes a more self-evident analogy. He assumes that the statue of Iris is beheaded and Poseidon amputated. Any reader who

has slightly touched Greek Mythology cannot tolerate such vandalism against

the Goddess and God of sea. His/her aversion is again disposed to British

Museum, nourishing a yearning for restitution.

With a sharp sarcasm when mentioning the destructive influence of “acid rain”

on the temple, Hitchens finally attempts to add power to his argument by striking

an emotional chord with his audience. In the end of paragraph 5, Lord Elgin

again comes into the spot light. The repeated reference to him reminds his reader of the pre-mentioned narration in paragraph 3, which states that it is Lord Elgin

who “sawed off approximately half of the adornment of the Parthenon and carried

it” to Britain. That he is the culprit of our issue discussed today piques the

audience and such words as “goon” and “smash” chosen by Hitchens in

paragraph 5 deepen the readers’ resentment. However, the author delivers an

unexpected gratitude to him, claiming “That leaves us with the next-best thing,

which turns out to be rather better than one had hoped”, that is appreciating his

feat to save the statue from Greece and spare them from the damaging effect

of pollution in Athens. In fact, Hitchens casts an irony, because he mocks Lord

Elgin’s sin and inferred that those who is now concerned about pollution actually

bring owls to Athens as most of the temple is still not in the city but in Britain.

Through this humorous satire, the author intensifies the reader’s repugnance

at this British ambassador and appeals to worrisome about the retrieval of the

Parthenon.

As Christopher Hitchens wishes at the end of the article, “there will be an

agreement to do the right thing”, the audience is successfully swayed to urge

British Museum to return the plunders of the Parthenon by his allusion to historic

events, persuasive analogy and inspiring sarcasm.

    关注 上海英隽文化传播有限公司