尽管大部分同学可以借鉴在初中至高中阶段的语文考试中"阅读赏析"的部分知识和技巧，但考虑到新SAT写作的答题方式为一篇完整的作文而非简答题或选择题，学生在对应两者的做题思路上有着根本的不同：语文的阅读赏析中，考生只需根据设定好的题目和相应区间做出回答;但在新SAT写作中，问卷中"请写一篇作者是如何说服读者其主要观点的文章" 这种笼统而单一的要求不仅没有明确的答题方式，也没有清楚的答题范围。这种"自问自答"的出题形式是北美文学课程中常用的考场方式，虽然赋予了学生极大的作答自由，但是也对学生对于文学作品的分析任务(Analytical Task)的理解提出较高的要求。

 

分析任务(Analytical Task)为何?

 

分析任务就是要求学生针对其选择的文章中某一段落或细节进行修辞和含义等方面的分析，进而说明作者是如何在这一段落或细节中论证其主论点或分论点的。虽然各种文学分析考试的主要要求十分相似，但是每个考试的得分细则仍稍有不同。标准化的新SAT写作考试对于其分析任务得分也有着明确地规定。以下是新SAT官方指南中所给出的写作分析子项分的部分评分标准：

 

Analysis 4 (3):

The response offers an insightful (effective) analysis of the source text and demonstrates a sophisticated (N/A) understanding of the analytical task. The response offers a thorough, well-considered (competent) evaluation of the author's use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements.

SAT官方提出的要求是学生要对源文进行分析并展示出对于分析任务的理解，同时也要给出对于作者所使用的各种文学特点的解析。看似简单的要求要完全做到实际上相当不易。

4分与3分的主要区别在哪?

评分标准本身已是言简意赅，而中对于4分与3分的区别则更显模棱两可，仅把 insightful 和 thorough 这两个抽象形容词替换成为了 effective 和 competent 并去掉了 sophisticated。被改掉的三个单词虽然意义不一，但是都反映了一个核心要求：4分的分析任务必须反映出文章的纵深。也就是说，学生在分析一个段落或细节的时候不能只局限在单一的区间内分析其字面含义，更要从全文的角度考察这个的段落或细节的综合意义。虽然4分和3分的区别绝不仅于此，但是很多时候两者的的差异体现了段落内和段落间分析的差异。

分析任务的实际反映

抽象的评分标准需要在实际的文字中反映出来。这里我们借用官方指南中前总统 Jimmy Carter 的 Foreword to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey 来进一步展示分析任务的优劣。文章细节如下：

Thesis: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be developed for industry.

Location: The 2nd of 9 paragraphs

Detail: More than a decade ago, [my wife] Rosalynn and I had the fortunate opportunity to camp and hike in these regions of the Arctic Refuge. During bright July days, we walked along ancient caribou trails and studied the brilliant mosaic of wildflowers, mosses, and lichens that hugged the tundra. There was a timeless quality about this great land. As the never-setting sun circled above the horizon, we watched muskox, those shaggy survivors of the Ice Age, lumber along braided rivers that meander toward the Beaufort Sea.

片段中可进行分析的文学特点包括：Anecdote，Personification，Descriptive Language。其中，Personification 是我们重点分析的文学特点，故在分析中我们需要使用到其分析功能句式：The author ascribes/attributes (human traits, emotions, behaviors …) to (an object or an animal)。

 

1st Attempt:

The author uses his personal anecdote to start his argument. Specifically, he personifies the "brilliant mosaic" when describing what he saw. By using the word "hugged," the author attributes/ascribes a human behavior to the arctic plants, therefore demonstrating the beauty of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Reading: 2~3 (Partial ~ Proficient) + Analysis: 2 (Partial)

该文段以较短的篇幅带出了源文的关键词，并写出了功能句式，但是却缺乏实际内容，让读者一头雾水。无论对 personal anecdote，brilliant mosaic，还是 human behavior，作者都点到辄止，缺乏进一步的说明和解析。同时，文段对于原文逻辑的分析过简：hug → arctic beauty，忽略了其中的变化过程。无论从这些关键词的语意还是文学特点本身上都无法给出 competent evaluation，更不要说 effective analysis 了。综合文段的阅读和分析任务情况，文段只能够获得 Partial 的评价。

2nd Attempt:

The author recounts his arctic journey with his wife more than a decade ago to start his argument. In descriptive visual language, the author presents the audience with an authentic picture of the Arctic Refuge, with personification deliberately employed to appeal to audience's senses. By depicting the "brilliant mosaic of wildflowers, mosses, and lichens that hugged the tundra," the author attributes/ascribes a human behavior to the arctic plants, ones that covered the tundra so well that it almost feels like that they were holding the tundra. Through the presentation of what he witnessed during his arctic trip, the author is therefore able to not only display the beauty of the National Wildlife Refuge, but also convince the audience of its importance to the environment.

Reading: 3~4 (Proficient ~ Advanced) + Analysis: 3 (Proficient)

该文段的篇幅较上一文段有明显增长，且增长的主要部位就是上一文段所缺少的对于 personal anecdote，brilliant mosaic，和 human behavior 的具体说明和解释。同时，本文段还比较丰富地还原了源文的逻辑：hug → cover → arctic beauty → environmental importance，不仅能够体现作者所写事物的特点和所使用文学特点的修辞意义，还能够很好地展示作者的写作目的。综合来说，competent evaluation 和 effective analysis 能让文段获得 Proficient 的评价。

 

3rd Attempt:

As the onset of his argument, the author provides specific details from his arctic journey with his wife more than a decade ago to allow the audience to envisage the Arctic Refuge. Through an environmental delineation "the brilliant mosaic of wildflowers, mosses, and lichens that hugged the tundra," the author attributes/ascribes a human behavior to the arctic plants that shrouded the arctic ground, revealing the abundance of the arctic vegetation. In doing so, the author not only displays the natural beauty of the National Wildlife Refuge, but also convinces the audience of its ecological value. In addition, by ensuring the audience the ecological value at the early stage of the passage, the author foreshadows the imminent danger from industrial development threatening the arctic refuge, encouraging the audience to raise immediate concern about the Arctic Refuge.

Reading: 4 (Advanced) + Analysis: 4 (Advanced)

该文段的篇幅与上一文段相当，说明段落长度并非决定阅读或分析任务好坏的主要因素。文段中对于 personal anecdote，brilliant mosaic，和 human behavior 的说明和解释大致与上一文段相同，而不同的地方主要集中在本文段后部，在解释和分析文本内容本身的基础上，还增加了文本对读者的效果和影响。另外，本文段进一步完善了源文的逻辑：hug → shroud → abundance → arctic beauty → ecological value → imminent danger，在很好地解释了作者是如何在本段中写出 Arctic Refuge 的生态意义的同时，还解释了本细节放置于全文第二段所起的结构性意义，即预示后文所写的环境问题。而这种纵观全文的解释，也就是段间联系的解析，能让本文段获得 Advanced 的评价。