SAT今晚出分，刚出炉的5月SAT【北美卷作文】全篇深度解读+标杆范 SAT快要出分了

SAT快要出分了，

但写作是否让你“凉凉”？

看看沈老师怎么解读

5月北美题的 Essay Writing 的。

回顾亚太卷作文解析和范文

点击下方链接：

5月亚太卷作文解析传送门

综述

从 2018 年 5 月的亚太和北美 SAT Essay Writing 的选文来看，CB 最近选择的英美报刊文章

难度明显有所增加

。

以这篇 5 月北美考题为例，文章的论述不是各位考生所熟悉的方式，文中明显的 statistical evidence、 experts’ testimony 几乎不见，同时 research results from credible sources 并不是直接为文章的 central claim 服务，不少同学准备好的“模版”几乎没有用武之地；

此外，文章没有以往考试中的 emotional appeals ，所以想要靠简单的摘选几个 word choice 来评价作者使用的 persuasive and stylistic elements 也无从下手。

所以，再次强调，

读懂文章是第一步！写作靠模版的方法万万不可！

很多同学认为 OG 四篇范文搞懂了就可以了，事实证明， CB 不见得完全按照 OG 所选择的文章思路出题。

以下是对这篇文章的整体解读，供各位备考同学参考：

1、The scientific evidence ongenetically engineered food, which has been around for two decades, indicates that it is as safe for human consumption as any other food.

A California bill that would require the labeling of bioengineered food — whose DNA has been modified in the laboratory to introduce certain traits — caters to a scare campaign that is not based on solid evidence.

这一段主要是在引出话题。作者开宗明义地指出：转基因食品是安全的，而这一，而加州最近的法案并不是基于科学研究。请注意，作者这里的用词：转基因食品在作者口中为Bioengineered food，这里的措辞不妨可以评价一下。

2、If a consumer has personal concerns about genetically modified food, there are other ways to avoid it. Trader Joe"s, for example, has announced that food sold under its label contains no genetically engineered ingredients.

There are apps and Internet sites to inform consumers about other foods. And companies that do not bioengineer their foods are certainly free to say so on their labels. But the science does not support mandatory labeling.

这一段是在说反对转基因食品并没有侵害消费者的选择权，作者用 Trader Joe’s 说事儿，Trader Joe’s 是美国最受欢迎的零售商，在美国家喻户晓。（这里再次提醒考生：北美考的文章经常涉及美国社会、历史等背景知识；所以，笔者并不推荐赴美考试，尤其是写作部分来说，弊大于利）。

此外，在正确读懂这篇文章的时候，同学们需要调集一些背景知识，比如关于“转基因食物”相关问题，社会主要争论的背景知识需要了解的，否则这篇文章看懂不易）

3、State Sen. Noreen Evans (D-SantaRosa) has said that her bill doesn"t make judgments about whether genetically engineered food is inherently good or bad but merely informs consumers.

Yet the wording says otherwise. It"s full of negative declarations about such food, with no mention of the positives. "United States government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of genetic material into plants via genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants or allergens in foods and create new toxicants or allergens with consequent health concerns," the bill says.

It doesn"t note that hundreds of studies, many by independent scientists who took no industry money, have found no credible evidence that bioengineered food has actually done any of those things, or is dangerous in any way to human health.

Reviews by the American Medical Assn.,the Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Sciences have all concluded that genetically engineered food appears to be as safe as any other.

这一段很重要。作者提出了矛盾焦点：转基因食物是否安全，作者引用了多家机构的研究成果，证实转基因食物是安全的，从科学角度驳斥了加州议员 Noreen Evans。

4、That"s not to say there are no downsides. Studies have raised legitimate concerns, for instance, that bioengineered crops designed to withstand the herbicide glyphosate, more commonly known by the Monsanto brand name Roundup, encourage farmers to overuse it, fostering the growth of resistant weeds.

The AMA, though it has said that genetically engineered food should not be labeled, has also called on the federal government to require more safety testing before new bioengineered products can bemarketed.

这一段是典型的“让步”，其目的是“平衡观点”，同时引出下文。文章中提出了臭名昭著的转基因种子公司 Monsanto 孟山都，很多有关转基因食品的伐文中都能看到这家公司的身影。

请注意，在这个例子中，孟山都是个负面例子，改良了作物的生物特性，使其具有抗除草剂的能力，这样农民就会过度依赖这家公司的种子产品。作者说，这种操作才是需要联邦政府加大监管力度的。

5、These issues are worth consideration, but labeling would not resolve either one. Most farms use pesticides, including some more dangerous than glyphosate, but their products don"t have to be labeled accordingly. Labeling requirements should have logical consistency; the campaign to label genetically engineered foods doesn"t.

这一段紧接前文。这里有一个明显的“类比”，说的是很多农民使用杀虫剂，比前文提到的除草剂危害更大，但当局却置若罔闻。这个类比让读者更加清楚地看到加州法案“逻辑”有误。

6、SB 1381 would require conspicuous yet imprecise labels notifying consumers that the food contains some genetically engineered ingredients, without making it clear what the engineering was meant to accomplish.

Food companies are developing products for reasons other than to make pesticide use easy, such as building resistance into crops, like oranges, that are threatened by disease,or creating non-allergenic forms of some grains.

But the labels wouldn"t give these details. They would serve mainly to frighten grocery shoppers by implying that there is something wrong with the food, without making them better informed. And the labels would be so ubiquitous as to be almost meaningless; it"s widely estimated that 70% to 80% of the packaged food in conventional supermarkets contains genetically engineered ingredients.

这一段读懂很重要，作者提出了正确的解决方案。当局不应该要求食品制造商标识转基因食物，这对于解决问题无益；真正需要做的是，要求制造商标示的是转基因技术被用于达成什么目的。

7、There are more worrisome agricultural practices that do affect human health, especially the overuse of antibiotics in livestock.

"There is strong evidence that some antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by antibiotic use in food animals," the U.S. Centers for Disease Controland Prevention reports.

Yet no one has been campaigning for labels on meat that comes from antibiotic-treated livestock. As with bioengineered food, this is best dealt with by appropriate safety regulations, not labels.

此外，作者再次运用“类比”写作方式，类比对象更为人们熟知的食品安全问题—畜牧业滥用抗生素，引用了美国疾控防当局的报告。作者说，同样相关当局对这个问题没有出台监管政策，这是渎职。

8、There"s a limit to what manufacturers can tell consumers about their food— labels can"t enumerate every possible or perceived concern.

Labeling laws should set a priority on providing information that significantly affects consumer health. They should be based on facts, not fear.

作者最后总结了全文，呼吁当局政策思路需要击中要害，而不是基于安抚民众情绪。

Write an essay in which you explain how the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board builds an argument to persuade its audience that genetically engineered foods should not be labeled. In your essay, analyze how the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of its argument. Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the passage.

Your essay should not explain whether you agree with the Editorial Board"s claims, but rather explain how it builds an argument to persuade its audience.

范文