2018年5月5日亚太SAT写作实例解析附范文

　　这篇文章在读文章时建议读完第一遍之后再确认一下上下文关系，reasoning的分析只是单纯的回答“公开数据好，不公开不好”可以拿到基本分数。考生是否能指出第五段之后的文本都是作者在“消除”第五段中指出的“顾虑”是拿高分(满分)关键。

　　evidence部分，作者以举例为主，而且都注明了公司名称比较容易识别，数量不多，可以都在evidence段落里呈现。

　　Persuasive elements部分，文章中有正负结果的比较和对比，文章中有多处pathos，措辞部分如果分析建议考生选择“滥用误导”“贡献”这样成组出现的关键价值判断信息来分析。

　　残文解析

　　In Harlan M. Krumholz's essay detailing the process of how companies share, use and release data to the public, the author takes an analytical stance and evaluates the social and corporate value of a company releasing its data to independent scientist. Although a large portion of the text holds a descriptive and expositional tone, Krumholz uses this to convey a meaning to the reader.

　　The author, revealing he is part of a Yale Open Data Project, is showing their authority on the topic of Data research and open data projects. They do so to convey a reputable stance so the audience knows what they are reading is credible. As Krumholz furthers their essay, they reveal some important knowledge to the scene, with the fact that Johnson & Johnson have released their data already disclosed in the beginning of the essay, Krumholz uses this to show that having open data creates transparency by saying “This is an extraordinary donation to society…”. The author not only does this to show that releasing data is groundbreaking, but also to convey a subliminal message to the reader to trust in companies who take actions to improve their transparency.

　　A position well engrained in Krumholz's text is that they only convey implicit messages towards the end of the text. For most of the text, Krumholz will lay out formal analysis of the topic, but lightly comments on the moral value of when companies release data. A reader can notice such style in paragraph 3 where Krumholz say “Today more than half of the claimed tricks in the United States…. are not published two years of their completion.” Then, soon after, Krumholz lightly reveals the importance of open data by saying “To be fair, the decision to share data is not easy.” This statement, on the surface, may seem like Krumholz is just commenting on the difficulty of releasing data, which they are, but upon deeper analysis, one can realize the subconscious message being sent to the reader, one of: “Releasing data is a bold strategy, and these companies are successful.”

　　Further delving into the text, readers see more details relating the process that Krumholz's project takes to use and reveal data, detailing how independent scientists can acquire such data, and how it is not just accessible to everyone. The project does not give data to applicants seeking to use it for commercial or legal purposes, revealing the transparency his project must take to become trustworthy to large corporations such as Johnson & Johnson or Med tronic, two massive medicine corporations. Krumholz uses this appeal to organizations who might be interested in data release projects.

　　In the last two paragraphs, Krumholz take use of an ethical stance upon data release in order to further convey the importance of such a project, they do so by saying “there are many benefits of the kind of sharing. It honors the contributions of the subjects and scientist who participated in the research…” and “It is proof that an organization…wants to play a role as a good global citizen.” These statements further reveal the authors main purpose to revel the innovation and importance data release takes in improving the credibility of a company.

　　Throughout the text, Krumholz moves from an analytical tone to an empathic tone in order to become more objective and reveal the power of data release and the process of the use of such data. These two tones compliment each other and improve the readers conception of companies transparencies and motives, an original purpose of Krumholz text. All of these stylistic choices present on objective yet reflective upon moral values of data usage text, to prove companies and individuals are important to work towards innovation and a better corporate future. And Krumholz does a great job at conveying this.

　　这篇文章分数为647，考生语言组织能力较好，对于文章的解读还可以更深入，失分惨重的中间analysis部分的分数。其实从考点选择和分析部分很容把这部分分数提高，这是这次考试中比较经典有借鉴意义的范文。

　　文章开头段建议用直白明确的语言强调作者观点(claim)，可以直接借用题目文章下方的方框内的语言。明确作者观点目的之后，再简要概括考生文章中将从哪几个角度去分析，才是功能上完整的开头段。

　　文章中对于三大考点中的 stylistic and persuasive elements的分析比较具体，reasoning部分没有单独的段落明确指出，但是文中解释了为什么需要公开数据。文章中缺少对Evidenc的分析，虽然文章中分析了statistic和quotation，但是都是在从风格上阐述，没有从evidence角度分析。建议分出一部分从evidence角度分析，避免过量在stylistic and persuasive elements这个层面分析数据。

　　题目文章中从第五至第八段，作者花了大量笔墨来打消公司和组织对“数据公开被不正当利用”的顾虑，以及问题的复杂性。这里作者先承认有一定问题和风险，但是随后具体指出这不是主要矛盾，而且公开数据利大于弊。所以这部分需要在reasoning中分析concession和rebuttal。只分析公开数据的效果好，没有办法获得高分，必须补充这部分才可以大幅度提高reading和analysis的分数。

　　考生文章第四段分析的对象应该是例子，作者例举Medtronic的例子具体解释如何消除顾虑。这也是属于evidence部分的考点。所以这部分也导致了reading和analysis部分的成绩。

　　考生文章第五段是stylistic and persuasive elements部分考点，考生已经建议强调pathos(emotions)上对与公开数据的“突出贡献”和“未来影响”的作用，建议再进一步去推测对于目标读者带来何种情绪，要具体到具体的某种情绪，比如(普通)因为好处充满期待和希望，(专业)认识因此受到责任的感召。

　　综上，这篇文章文本难度适中，题目考点均衡友好。但是考生容易被大量的数据诱导导致分析上的重点和比例出现偏差，建议考场上除了对考点本身敏感之外，要强化官方强调的三大考点evidence，reasoning和stylistic and persuasive elements的概念，按照三大类分段更容易避免比例失衡甚至漏项的问题。冲击高分或者满分的同学，务必要养成读完段落总结段落主旨，读完文章进行分层，完成整体逻辑链条的工作。

　　以上就是为大家整理的“2018年5月5日亚太SAT写作实例解析附范文”全部内容，更多精彩内容请持续关注本频道的更新!

SAT水平能力测试【0元免费测试】