SAT出分了，
但寫作是否讓你“涼涼”？
看看沈老師怎麼解讀
5月北美題的 Essay Writing 的。
綜 述
從 2018 年 5 月的亞太和北美 SAT Essay Writing 的選文來看，CB 最近選擇的英美報刊文章難度明顯有所增加。
以這篇 5 月北美考題為例，文章的論述不是各位考生所熟悉的方式，文中明顯的 statistical evidence、 experts’ testimony 幾乎不見 ，同時 research results from credible sources 並不是直接為文章的 central claim 服務，不少同學準備好的“模版”幾乎沒有用武之地；
此外，文章沒有以往考試中的 emotional appeals ，所以想要靠簡單的摘選幾個 word choice 來評價作者使用的 persuasive and stylistic elements 也無從下手。
所以，再次強調，讀懂文章是第一步！寫作靠模版的方法萬萬不可！很多同學認為 OG 四篇範文搞懂了就可以了，事實證明， CB 不見得完全按照 OG 所選擇的文章思路出題。
以下是對這篇文章的整體解讀，供各位備考同學參考：
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.
這一段主要是在引出話題。作者開宗明義地指出：轉基因食品是安全的，而這一，而加州最近的法案並不是基於科學研究。請注意，作者這裡的用詞： 轉基因食品在作者口中為Bioengineered food，這裡的措辭不妨可以評價一下。
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.
這一段是在說反對轉基因食品並沒有侵害消費者的選擇權，作者用 Trader Joe’s 說事兒，Trader Joe’s 是美國最受歡迎的零售商，在美國家喻戶曉。（這裡再次提醒考生：北美考的文章經常涉及美國社會、歷史等背景知識；所以，筆者並不推薦赴美考試，尤其是寫作部分來說，弊大於利）。
此外，在正確讀懂這篇文章的時候，同學們需要調集一些背景知識，比如關於“轉基因食物”相關問題，社會主要爭論的背景知識需要了解的，否則這篇文章看懂不易）
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.
這一段很重要。作者提出了矛盾焦點：轉基因食物是否安全，作者引用了多家機構的研究成果，證實轉基因食物是安全的，從科學角度駁斥了加州議員 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.
這一段是典型的“讓步”，其目的是“平衡觀點”，同時引出下文。文章中提出了臭名昭著的轉基因種子公司 Monsanto 孟山都，很多有關轉基因食品的伐文中都能看到這家公司的身影。
請注意，在這個例子中，孟山都是個負面例子，改良了作物的生物特性，使其具有抗除草劑的能力，這樣農民就會過度依賴這家公司的種子產品。作者說，這種操作才是需要聯邦政府加大監管力度的。
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.
這一段緊接前文。這裡有一個明顯的“類比”，說的是很多農民使用殺蟲劑，比前文提到的除草劑危害更大，但當局卻置若罔聞。這個類比讓讀者更加清楚地看到加州法案“邏輯”有誤。
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.
這一段讀懂很重要，作者提出了正確的解決方案。當局不應該要求食品製造商標識轉基因食物，這對於解決問題無益；真正需要做的是，要求製造商標示的是轉基因技術被用於達成什麼目的。
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 再次運用“類比”寫作方式，類比對象更為人們熟知的食品安全問題—畜牧業濫用抗生素，引用了美國疾控防當局的報告。作者說，同樣相關當局對這個問題沒有出臺監管政策，這是瀆職。
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.
作者最後總結了全文，呼籲當局政策思路需要擊中要害，而不是基於安撫民眾情緒。
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.
範 文
沈禕老師
擅長教授新SAT閱讀、寫作
20年一線英語培訓，幾乎零投訴。先後從事四六級英語（翻譯、閱讀）、雅思（聽力、閱讀、寫作）、新概念英語（第三、第四冊）、商務英語（BEC中高級）、中高級口譯（聽力、口譯、閱讀）、託福（聽力、閱讀）及託雅（聽力），SAT（美國高考）閱讀及寫作教學，教學經驗豐富。
閱讀更多 沃邦國際教育 的文章
