SAT出分了薛耻，

　　但寫作是否讓你“涼涼”篱竭？

　　看看沈老師怎么解讀

　　5月北美題的 Essay Writing 的昼接。

　　綜 述

從 2018 年 5 月的亞太和北美 SAT Essay Writing 的選文來(lái)看构韵，CB 最近選擇的英美報(bào)刊文章難度明顯有所增加莱衩。

　　以這篇 5 月北美考題為例爵嗅，文章的論述不是各位考生所熟悉的方式，文中明顯的 statistical evidence笨蚁、 experts’ testimony 幾乎不見(jiàn) ?睹晒，同時(shí) research results from credible sources 并不是直接為文章的 central claim ?服務(wù)，不少同學(xué)準(zhǔn)備好的“模版”幾乎沒(méi)有用武之地括细；

　　此外伪很，文章沒(méi)有以往考試中的 emotional appeals ，所以想要靠簡(jiǎn)單的摘選幾個(gè) word choice 來(lái)評(píng)價(jià)作者使用的 persuasive and stylistic elements 也無(wú)從下手奋单。

所以锉试，再次強(qiáng)調(diào)，讀懂文章是第一步览濒！寫作靠模版的方法萬(wàn)萬(wàn)不可呆盖！很多同學(xué)認(rèn)為 OG 四篇范文搞懂了就可以了败玉，事實(shí)證明靡努， CB 不見(jiàn)得完全按照 OG 所選擇的文章思路出題兴使。

　　以下是對(duì)這篇文章的整體解讀拼弃，供各位備考同學(xué)參考：

　　1癌淮、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.

　　這一段主要是在引出話題跋涣。作者開(kāi)宗明義地指出：轉(zhuǎn)基因食品是安全的护姆，而這一诉探，而加州最近的法案并不是基于科學(xué)研究。請(qǐng)注意洞就，作者這里的用詞： 轉(zhuǎn)基因食品在作者口中為Bioengineered food盆繁，這里的措辭不妨可以評(píng)價(jià)一下。

　　2奖磁、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.

　　這一段是在說(shuō)反對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品并沒(méi)有侵害消費(fèi)者的選擇權(quán)改基，作者用 Trader Joe’s 說(shuō)事兒，Trader Joe’s 是美國(guó)最受歡迎的零售商咖为，在美國(guó)家喻戶曉秕狰。（這里再次提醒考生：北美考的文章經(jīng)常涉及美國(guó)社會(huì)、歷史等背景知識(shí)躁染；所以鸣哀，筆者并不推薦赴美考試，尤其是寫作部分來(lái)說(shuō)吞彤，弊大于利）我衬。

　　此外，在正確讀懂這篇文章的時(shí)候饰恕，同學(xué)們需要調(diào)集一些背景知識(shí)挠羔，比如關(guān)于“轉(zhuǎn)基因食物”相關(guān)問(wèn)題，社會(huì)主要爭(zhēng)論的背景知識(shí)需要了解的埋嵌，否則這篇文章看懂不易）

　　3破加、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.

　　這一段很重要。作者提出了矛盾焦點(diǎn)：轉(zhuǎn)基因食物是否安全雹嗦，作者引用了多家機(jī)構(gòu)的研究成果范舀，證實(shí)轉(zhuǎn)基因食物是安全的，從科學(xué)角度駁斥了加州議員 Noreen Evans了罪。

　　4锭环、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.

　　這一段是典型的“讓步”，其目的是“平衡觀點(diǎn)”泊藕，同時(shí)引出下文辅辩。文章中提出了臭名昭著的轉(zhuǎn)基因種子公司 Monsanto 孟山都，很多有關(guān)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的伐文中都能看到這家公司的身影娃圆。

　　請(qǐng)注意汽久，在這個(gè)例子中，孟山都是個(gè)負(fù)面例子踊餐，改良了作物的生物特性，使其具有抗除草劑的能力臀稚，這樣農(nóng)民就會(huì)過(guò)度依賴這家公司的種子產(chǎn)品吝岭。作者說(shuō)，這種操作才是需要聯(lián)邦政府加大監(jiān)管力度的。

　　5窜管、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.

　　這一段緊接前文散劫。這里有一個(gè)明顯的“類比”，說(shuō)的是很多農(nóng)民使用殺蟲劑幕帆，比前文提到的除草劑危害更大获搏，但當(dāng)局卻置若罔聞。這個(gè)類比讓讀者更加清楚地看到加州法案“邏輯”有誤失乾。

　　6常熙、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.

　　這一段讀懂很重要，作者提出了正確的解決方案碱茁。當(dāng)局不應(yīng)該要求食品制造商標(biāo)識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)基因食物裸卫，這對(duì)于解決問(wèn)題無(wú)益；真正需要做的是纽竣，要求制造商標(biāo)示的是轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)被用于達(dá)成什么目的墓贿。

　　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.

　　此外蜓氨，作者 再次運(yùn)用“類比”寫作方式聋袋，類比對(duì)象更為人們熟知的食品安全問(wèn)題—畜牧業(yè)濫用抗生素，引用了美國(guó)疾控防當(dāng)局的報(bào)告穴吹。作者說(shuō)幽勒，同樣相關(guān)當(dāng)局對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題沒(méi)有出臺(tái)監(jiān)管政策，這是瀆職刀荒。

　　8代嗤、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.

　　作者最后總結(jié)了全文，呼吁當(dāng)局政策思路需要擊中要害缠借，而不是基于安撫民眾情緒干毅。

　　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

　　沈祎老師

　　沃邦SAT閱讀、寫作老師

　　20年一線英語(yǔ)培訓(xùn)泼返，幾乎零投訴硝逢。先后從事四六級(jí)英語(yǔ)（翻譯、閱讀）绅喉、雅思（聽(tīng)力渠鸽、閱讀、寫作）柴罐、新概念英語(yǔ)（第三徽缚、第四冊(cè)）、商務(wù)英語(yǔ)（BEC中高級(jí)）革屠、中高級(jí)口譯（聽(tīng)力凿试、口譯排宰、閱讀）、托福（聽(tīng)力那婉、閱讀）及托雅（聽(tīng)力）板甘，SAT（美國(guó)高考）閱讀及寫作教學(xué)，教學(xué)經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富详炬。